Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
Gay people. Unless they enjoy being pushed off tall buildings. We saw what IS did to gay people in those places they momentarily held. Islam is a threat to gay people wherever it exists, let alone fundamentalists.
Yep. Many of the supposedly great religions detest us, but Islam definitely wins first prize in the gay persecution and slaughter contest, and by a tidy margin.
At this point we must remember that not only is Gaza ruled by Hamas, but a very large fraction of the people there actually voted for the fuckers. They like and approve of Hamas. They think they've got the right ideas.
One feels that one ought to be sympathetic to the predicament in which the Gazans now find themselves, but it's hard to care much about people that think you belong in Hell, and would rejoice at sending you there as soon as possible given half a chance.
A smaller fraction now, if it is true that more than half of the population was not around to vote. Ironically, Israel's action might harden support for Hamas, because at least they are fighting back against the destroyers of Gazan homes, infrastructure, and lives.
Fighting back by hiding under Gazan homes, infrastructure, and lives
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Evolution is a great idea. Much of the American MAGA Right should give it a try and reach the level of, at least, the mid range primates.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
Gay people. Unless they enjoy being pushed off tall buildings. We saw what IS did to gay people in those places they momentarily held. Islam is a threat to gay people wherever it exists, let alone fundamentalists.
And women
I mean, don't women literally have a fractional worth to men in Islamic law? Like you need several women to equal one man as a witness, and all sorts of shit like that?
Apparently so. In many respects their worth is deemed to be ¼ of that of a man.
Why any woman would want to be a muslim is beyond me. Seriously. Why would you willingly subordinate yourself to that attitude?
And yet there are a fair number of female Muslim converts, and not all as erratic as Sinead O'connor. Similarly I know a fair number of westernised Muslim families where a daughter adopts the Niqab to her parents horror.
A lot of religions are systemically misogynistic, homophobic and oppressive. Indeed Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism are in the frame too.
Some people just like a clear set of instructions on how to live, imposed from above. Not everyone can cope with freedom, and some people feel so threatened by freedom that they want to kill it.
It isn't just an Islamist issue. We have had the same here in the past.
So you’re cool with the women quarter value, so long as some subjugated women don’t complain too much?
No. I am not a Islamist.
The paradox is that some women do choose to be, and I was exploring the reasons why.
Do you ever worry about your views being parallel to those of Islamists?
How do you force people to change their beliefs?
Torture doesn’t really work very well, and is considered a bit rude as well. And in these environmental times, trying to run electric shocks off solar cells is a real fiddle.
Brain washing doesn’t really exist, despite the CIA spending a fortune on LSD.
Old fashioned “burn all the heretics” is a possible. But how do you get the permits for public cremations on an open fire? The particulates from that would be something fierce.
Getting people to change their beliefs about anything is jolly difficult. That's true even when it's not tied up with people's sense of self- there's a dismal literature of science education that says that however well you teach people, deep down they still believe the wrong stuff.
So you either go for fire'n'fear, or you do the subtler clever thing, which is to persuade them that the new beliefs are consistent with the old ones, even if there's some intellectual armwaving to do on the way.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Evolution is a great idea. Much of the American MAGA Right should give it a try and reach the level of, at least, the mid range primates.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Evolution is a great idea. Much of the American MAGA Right should give it a try and reach the level of, at least, the mid range primates.
Still below the level of ChatGPT ;-)
Actually, from having worked with various “AI”, a common feature is the lying - inventing facts. Which often resembles the batshit stuff that Trump comes up with.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
Gay people. Unless they enjoy being pushed off tall buildings. We saw what IS did to gay people in those places they momentarily held. Islam is a threat to gay people wherever it exists, let alone fundamentalists.
Yep. Many of the supposedly great religions detest us, but Islam definitely wins first prize in the gay persecution and slaughter contest, and by a tidy margin.
At this point we must remember that not only is Gaza ruled by Hamas, but a very large fraction of the people there actually voted for the fuckers. They like and approve of Hamas. They think they've got the right ideas.
One feels that one ought to be sympathetic to the predicament in which the Gazans now find themselves, but it's hard to care much about people that think you belong in Hell, and would rejoice at sending you there as soon as possible given half a chance.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
He wants the USA to be a Christian nation, it shows how far secularist left liberals like you have now swung that that apparently means he wants to abolish democracy!
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
The National Secular Society opposes religious schools and wants to close them all
Interesting you replied like that. Nobody mentioned state subsidy for religous sects' indoctrination of children till you did.
Now you mention it, about time we closed down all sectarian schooling on council tax or central government money.
You also one of the secular fundamentalists I see, denying religious parents (who are also taxpayers who fund state education) the right to choose the schools they want for their children
Religious education is a form of indoctrination where a set of unproveable statements are presented as facts and combined with threatened punishments for disbelief (like burning in hellfire forever) or for some religions, murder or torture or both probably followed by hellfire in the afterlife.
Ruling your "flock" through coercion and fear. And this is supposed to be moral? Admirable?
Make all schools secular. The parents can still choose which school they like, but none of them should be offering mental torture as an option.
As I said, you are a secular fundamentalist extremist.
You want to close all religious schools, despite most getting above average results and deny taxpaying religious parents the freedom to send their children to religious schools.
And the idea the average C of E primary is telling all its pupils all day long they will burn in hell forever is laughable
Just because someone doesn't believe in religious schools it doesn't make them 'secular fundamentalist extremists '. I believe in freedom of religion, but I disagree that any particular religion should be taught in schools, particularly state schools. It might be very mild, but it is a form of indoctrination and should not be part of a democracy. I have no issue with religion outside of education.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
The National Secular Society opposes religious schools and wants to close them all
Interesting you replied like that. Nobody mentioned state subsidy for religous sects' indoctrination of children till you did.
Now you mention it, about time we closed down all sectarian schooling on council tax or central government money.
You also one of the secular fundamentalists I see, denying religious parents (who are also taxpayers who fund state education) the right to choose the schools they want for their children
Religious education is a form of indoctrination where a set of unproveable statements are presented as facts and combined with threatened punishments for disbelief (like burning in hellfire forever) or for some religions, murder or torture or both probably followed by hellfire in the afterlife.
Ruling your "flock" through coercion and fear. And this is supposed to be moral? Admirable?
Make all schools secular. The parents can still choose which school they like, but none of them should be offering mental torture as an option.
As I said, you are a secular fundamentalist extremist.
You want to close all religious schools, despite most getting above average results and deny taxpaying religious parents the freedom to send their children to religious schools.
And the idea the average C of E primary is telling all its pupils all day long they will burn in hell forever is laughable
Just because someone doesn't believe in religious schools it doesn't make them 'secular fundamentalist extremists '. I believe in freedom of religion, but I disagree that any particular religion should be taught in schools, particularly state schools. It might be very mild, but it is a form of indoctrination and should not be part of a democracy. I have no issue with religion outside of education.
Yes it does, it means you want to drive religion out of education and prevent even schools with a religious ethos and with pupils from a similar religious background from existing to suit your secular agenda. It is fundamentally anti parental choice to deny religious parents the choice of good religious schools for their children
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Evolution is a great idea. Much of the American MAGA Right should give it a try and reach the level of, at least, the mid range primates.
Still below the level of ChatGPT ;-)
Actually, from having worked with various “AI”, a common feature is the lying - inventing facts. Which often resembles the batshit stuff that Trump comes up with.
Not just the hallucination....its the gas lighting that it never claimed such a thing....
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
He wants the USA to be a Christian nation, it shows how far secularist left liberals like you have now swung that that apparently means he wants to abolish democracy!
He wants the US to be a Christian nation above it being a democracy. I’m not keen on any nation being defined in terms of one religion, be that the Islamic Republic of Iran or the USA that Mike Johnson wants. Democracy means the choice of the voters to be guided by any religion or none.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
Honest as the day is long.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician) ...On November 17, 2020, Johnson said: "You know the allegations about these voting machines, some of them being rigged with this software by Dominion, there's a lot of merit to that. And when the president says the election was rigged, that's what he's talking about. The fix was in. [...] a software system that is used all around the country that is suspect because it came from Hugo Chávez's Venezuela".[83][84][85][86] By October 2022, Johnson said that he had never supported claims that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election.[87]
In December 2020, Johnson led an effort in which 126 Republican U.S. representatives signed an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania,[85][88][89] a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election.[90] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of an election held by another state.[91][92][93]
During the January 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, Johnson was one of 120 U.S. representatives who objected to certifying the 2020 presidential election results from both Arizona and Pennsylvania, while another 19 U.S. representatives objected for one of these states.[94] The New York Times called Johnson "the most important architect of the Electoral College objections" because he had argued to reject the results based on the argument of "constitutional infirmity" and persuaded "about three-quarters" of the objectors to use that rationale...
Yes he contested the results, which was a perfectly legal and constitutional thing to do until the results of the election were certified by Congress
And he then tried to subvert that certification. Wriggle all you want. You are supporting a nasty, despicable, totalitarian theocrat. Just because he wears a suit rather than jackboots does not make him pleasant, honest or even likeable.
---
House Speaker Mike Johnson played a key role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election
"Well before he was elected House speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., played a key role in efforts by then-President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in the 2020 election.
Johnson, who was the GOP caucus vice chair and is an ally of Trump, led the amicus brief signed by more than 100 House Republicans in support of a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate the 2020 election results in four swing states Biden won: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
And he was legally and constitutionally entitled to do so, as it was lodged in December 2020 well before Biden's election was confirmed by Congress
Being epically pedantic, the election results were confirmed by the Electoral College meeting on December 14 2020, certified by the U.S. Congress on January 7, 2021, and Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021.
This point was made by Dan Quayle to Mike Pence: Congress certifies the votes (that they have the right numbers, etc), not count them. If it was the latter, then Pence would have been within his rights to recount them
Scheindeir - former comms for Corbyn - the river to sea phrase is not anti-jewish.
"It means all people living together".
Jeez.
Next they will be claiming that the Final Solution actually referred to the peaceful resettlement of Jews in Nazi Germany to a lovely part of the Black Forest, so everybody could live in harmony.
'Swedish workers are not going to start a revolution, because Swedish social democracy is pretty damn nice.
This leaves Western leftists without much to fight for. Sure, some claim that African and Latin American countries are still “colonized” because they don’t get paid enough for their natural resource exports, but very few people actually believe that, and even fewer care enough to march in the street. Nor do most people think that climate change is going to force a dramatic reordering of society — we’re just going to build some solar panels and electric cars and stuff. Most actual imperialism in the world is now done by countries like China and Russia that are opposed to the West (and Western leftists only ever oppose the West). And despite continuous leftist shrieking that neoliberalism has left both the world and America impoverished, on some level everyone knows that global poverty has plunged and that most Americans are materially secure.
The Palestinian cause was different; it was an exception to this end-of-history ennui. Here was real obvious oppression instead of some hand-wavey theory. Here was a liberation struggle that could be (somewhat) plausibly depicted as decolonial. Israel’s alliance with the U.S. makes it plausibly part of the West, meaning Western leftists feel OK opposing it. And because most mainstream progressives instinctively support Israel’s continued existence, this was an issue that allowed Western leftists to draw a bright distinction between themselves and the left-of-center establishment.'
At some point we are going to have to assess whether the large scale protests we are seeing on our streets will have some kind of political impact. My sense is that a lot of people will be bewildered by much of it. If Labour tears itself apart over a relatively small war going on 2000 miles away, there's a danger they don't look like a serious party of government.
It is certainly an event that Sir K could well do without at this stage.
Probably although outside of the decent-sized minority of activists who care massively about Israel/Palestine, most people are fairly ambivalent and it’s not really an issue they’d vote on. The risk is that Labour start to tie themselves in knots over it, given their recent history with antisemitism, and they look a bit less like the government-in-waiting as a result.
Fwiw I think Andy McDonald’s suspension is a bit OTT in the full context of his words.
Tbh I’m trying not to engage on this issue too much, but in the context of domestic politics I think it is fairly minor.
I agree. No one in this country is going to vote according to a party's view on the Middle East. Although Jezza repulsed plenty of Jews.
And as for the delayed well I do get stuck in but it's getting a bit golden age Comment is Free about it on here.
Corbynista have clearly got a shared line to take this evening:
Andrew Fisher @FisherAndrew79 Louise Ellman then says she wants a two-state solution, which is exactly what @AndyMcDonaldMP was quite clearly calling for:
“We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty” #Newsnight
Corbynista have clearly got a shared line to take this evening:
Andrew Fisher @FisherAndrew79 Louise Ellman then says she wants a two-state solution, which is exactly what @AndyMcDonaldMP was quite clearly calling for:
“We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty” #Newsnight
I wonder how they would react if a right winger used the phrase "final solution" and claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the context was different.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
The National Secular Society opposes religious schools and wants to close them all
Interesting you replied like that. Nobody mentioned state subsidy for religous sects' indoctrination of children till you did.
Now you mention it, about time we closed down all sectarian schooling on council tax or central government money.
You also one of the secular fundamentalists I see, denying religious parents (who are also taxpayers who fund state education) the right to choose the schools they want for their children
Religious education is a form of indoctrination where a set of unproveable statements are presented as facts and combined with threatened punishments for disbelief (like burning in hellfire forever) or for some religions, murder or torture or both probably followed by hellfire in the afterlife.
Ruling your "flock" through coercion and fear. And this is supposed to be moral? Admirable?
Make all schools secular. The parents can still choose which school they like, but none of them should be offering mental torture as an option.
As I said, you are a secular fundamentalist extremist.
You want to close all religious schools, despite most getting above average results and deny taxpaying religious parents the freedom to send their children to religious schools.
And the idea the average C of E primary is telling all its pupils all day long they will burn in hell forever is laughable
Just because someone doesn't believe in religious schools it doesn't make them 'secular fundamentalist extremists '. I believe in freedom of religion, but I disagree that any particular religion should be taught in schools, particularly state schools. It might be very mild, but it is a form of indoctrination and should not be part of a democracy. I have no issue with religion outside of education.
Yes it does, it means you want to drive religion out of education and prevent even schools with a religious ethos and with pupils from a similar religious background from existing to suit your secular agenda. It is fundamentally anti parental choice to deny religious parents the choice of good religious schools for their children
I don't have a secular agenda. In fact both my children went to a CofE school so clearly I don't as I could have sent them elsewhere. But religion really should play no part in education. It is not part of education. It is a belief not a fact or skill to be learnt. Parents can still get involved in their local church, Sunday school, etc. Why do they have to have it at school as well which should be about education, not faith.
Where would you draw the line? Would you be happy with pagan schools, voodoo school, rain god worshiping schools, or is it better that schools should focus on education and religion be left to personal choice.
Corbynista have clearly got a shared line to take this evening:
Andrew Fisher @FisherAndrew79 Louise Ellman then says she wants a two-state solution, which is exactly what @AndyMcDonaldMP was quite clearly calling for:
“We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty” #Newsnight
I wonder how they would react if a right winger used the phrase "final solution" and claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the context was different.
Corbynista have clearly got a shared line to take this evening:
Andrew Fisher @FisherAndrew79 Louise Ellman then says she wants a two-state solution, which is exactly what @AndyMcDonaldMP was quite clearly calling for:
“We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty” #Newsnight
I wonder how they would react if a right winger used the phrase "final solution" and claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the context was different.
Well...not even that, joke you wouldn't shag somebody.....
Cummings is up tomorrow at the whitewash inquiry into how well the government of Britain coped with covid.
Could be box office.
Popcorn ready...
He tried to Arnie Vinick the spectacles scandal, and it failed him. Wonder what he has in store this time. I imagine he will throw Boris under the bus.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
He wants the USA to be a Christian nation, it shows how far secularist left liberals like you have now swung that that apparently means he wants to abolish democracy!
He wants the US to be a Christian nation above it being a democracy. I’m not keen on any nation being defined in terms of one religion, be that the Islamic Republic of Iran or the USA that Mike Johnson wants. Democracy means the choice of the voters to be guided by any religion or none.
He believes the US constitution defined the US as a Christian nation, so what, it probably did.
That is a defining principle of what he believes in as a politician, it doesn't mean he is trying to abolish all elections
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
He wants the USA to be a Christian nation, it shows how far secularist left liberals like you have now swung that that apparently means he wants to abolish democracy!
“... You don’t want to be in a democracy. Majority rule: not always a good thing,” Johnson said at the First Baptist Church of Haughton, Louisiana, in 2019.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
Honest as the day is long.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician) ...On November 17, 2020, Johnson said: "You know the allegations about these voting machines, some of them being rigged with this software by Dominion, there's a lot of merit to that. And when the president says the election was rigged, that's what he's talking about. The fix was in. [...] a software system that is used all around the country that is suspect because it came from Hugo Chávez's Venezuela".[83][84][85][86] By October 2022, Johnson said that he had never supported claims that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election.[87]
In December 2020, Johnson led an effort in which 126 Republican U.S. representatives signed an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania,[85][88][89] a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election.[90] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of an election held by another state.[91][92][93]
During the January 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, Johnson was one of 120 U.S. representatives who objected to certifying the 2020 presidential election results from both Arizona and Pennsylvania, while another 19 U.S. representatives objected for one of these states.[94] The New York Times called Johnson "the most important architect of the Electoral College objections" because he had argued to reject the results based on the argument of "constitutional infirmity" and persuaded "about three-quarters" of the objectors to use that rationale...
Yes he contested the results, which was a perfectly legal and constitutional thing to do until the results of the election were certified by Congress
And he then tried to subvert that certification. Wriggle all you want. You are supporting a nasty, despicable, totalitarian theocrat. Just because he wears a suit rather than jackboots does not make him pleasant, honest or even likeable.
---
House Speaker Mike Johnson played a key role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election
"Well before he was elected House speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., played a key role in efforts by then-President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in the 2020 election.
Johnson, who was the GOP caucus vice chair and is an ally of Trump, led the amicus brief signed by more than 100 House Republicans in support of a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate the 2020 election results in four swing states Biden won: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
And he was legally and constitutionally entitled to do so, as it was lodged in December 2020 well before Biden's election was confirmed by Congress
Being epically pedantic, the election results were confirmed by the Electoral College meeting on December 14 2020, certified by the U.S. Congress on January 7, 2021, and Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021.
This point was made by Dan Quayle to Mike Pence: Congress certifies the votes (that they have the right numbers, etc), not count them. If it was the latter, then Pence would have been within his rights to recount them
Yes and there was nothing unconstitutional about launching legal challenges to those state EC results until Congress certified the election, only at the latter point was the new President elected not before
Cummings is up tomorrow at the whitewash inquiry into how well the government of Britain coped with covid.
Could be box office.
Popcorn ready...
He tried to Arnie Vinick the spectacles scandal, and it failed him. Wonder what he has in store this time. I imagine he will throw Boris under the bus.
Times claimed at weekend he has spent months holed up on Lindesfarne island pouring over all his messages and memos and notes.\
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
He wants the USA to be a Christian nation, it shows how far secularist left liberals like you have now swung that that apparently means he wants to abolish democracy!
“... You don’t want to be in a democracy. Majority rule: not always a good thing,” Johnson said at the First Baptist Church of Haughton, Louisiana, in 2019.
Cummings is up tomorrow at the whitewash inquiry into how well the government of Britain coped with covid.
Could be box office.
Popcorn ready...
He tried to Arnie Vinick the spectacles scandal, and it failed him. Wonder what he has in store this time. I imagine he will throw Boris under the bus.
Times claimed at weekend he has spent months holed up on Lindesfarne island pouring over all his messages and memos and notes.\
Ah, so we're getting "if only everyone had listened to me".
Cummings is up tomorrow at the whitewash inquiry into how well the government of Britain coped with covid.
Could be box office.
Popcorn ready...
Why call it a “whitewash inquiry”? It’s revealed plenty of critical material so far, and it’s only just getting started.
The way the KCs handled the Oxford evidence-based meds guy was a disgrace.
And seems they are not going anywhere near asking the actual question that matters:
Why did Sweden do far better than us?
Not even interviewing Tegnell.
It's a sham. Total whitewash as far as the real substance is concerned. All this bollx about who said who was a fat waste of space on WhatsApp is amusing and a bit relevant but it is not the issue that actaually matters for the next pandemic.
Cummings is up tomorrow at the whitewash inquiry into how well the government of Britain coped with covid.
Could be box office.
Popcorn ready...
He tried to Arnie Vinick the spectacles scandal, and it failed him. Wonder what he has in store this time. I imagine he will throw Boris under the bus.
Times claimed at weekend he has spent months holed up on Lindesfarne island pouring over all his messages and memos and notes.\
Ah, so we're getting "if only everyone had listened to me".
Hours and hours of it I guess.
Be amusing if the KC opened questioning by asking 'how was the parking at Barnard Castle in the middle of the plague?'
The most interesting thing -- for me -- about Mike Johnson is Michael: "Johnson has said: "My faith informs everything I do."[134] He has said that early in his married life, he and his wife took in a 14-year-old African-American boy and consider him part of their family." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Personal_life
Off and on, I have known Jehovah Witnesses, casually. To say the least, I don't share their theology. But those I have known have all been peaceful, productive people. So I don't have any problem getting along with them.
(Reminder: Barack Obama said that he was opposed to gay marriage -- for religious reasons -- not that long ago.)
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
He wants the USA to be a Christian nation, it shows how far secularist left liberals like you have now swung that that apparently means he wants to abolish democracy!
He wants the US to be a Christian nation above it being a democracy. I’m not keen on any nation being defined in terms of one religion, be that the Islamic Republic of Iran or the USA that Mike Johnson wants. Democracy means the choice of the voters to be guided by any religion or none.
Neither were the founders who wrote the constitution, hence The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause therein.
Almost the entire twitter feed is pro-palestinian coverage.
It is very unfortunate. There’s a bunch of Trotskyite tankies that have gained control over parts of the union, both at UCL and more widely. They are not representative of most local members. There was an almighty kerfuffle after there was an anti-Ukraine motion and an EGM was called at UCL with a very high turnout who then reversed that.
Cummings is up tomorrow at the whitewash inquiry into how well the government of Britain coped with covid.
Could be box office.
Popcorn ready...
Why call it a “whitewash inquiry”? It’s revealed plenty of critical material so far, and it’s only just getting started.
The way the KCs handled the Oxford evidence-based meds guy was a disgrace.
And seems they are not going anywhere near asking the actual question that matters:
Why did Sweden do far better than us?
Not even interviewing Tegnell.
It's a sham. Total whitewash as far as the real substance is concerned. All this bollx about who said who was a fat waste of space on WhatsApp is amusing and a bit relevant but it is not the issue that actaually matters for the next pandemic.
The morons who do this, do they realise that all McDonalds are just franchises who have nothing to do with McDonald's corporate decisions. All you are doing is just f##king up some poor sods small business.
In all likelihood as others have said, Starmer isn’t going to lose any support over the current situation in Labour.
Where it could get challenging is if he experiences a number of resignations, which could give rise to the divided party mantra, which could in itself give the electorate something to question. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near that yet, and I don’t expect us to get there. The Labour Party are now gearing up for power. There will be enough key people, even if they think Starmer hasn’t handled things well, who will look the other way at the moment, because they are now within touching distance of power and influence.
Cummings is up tomorrow at the whitewash inquiry into how well the government of Britain coped with covid.
Could be box office.
Popcorn ready...
Why call it a “whitewash inquiry”? It’s revealed plenty of critical material so far, and it’s only just getting started.
The way the KCs handled the Oxford evidence-based meds guy was a disgrace.
And seems they are not going anywhere near asking the actual question that matters:
Why did Sweden do far better than us?
Not even interviewing Tegnell.
It's a sham. Total whitewash as far as the real substance is concerned. All this bollx about who said who was a fat waste of space on WhatsApp is amusing and a bit relevant but it is not the issue that actaually matters for the next pandemic.
Sweden didn’t do far better than us.
Also, there’s a helluva lot more Inquiry to come.
Do they have a whole generation of kids with a mass of problems thanks to lockdown of schools for months?
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
Honest as the day is long.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician) ...On November 17, 2020, Johnson said: "You know the allegations about these voting machines, some of them being rigged with this software by Dominion, there's a lot of merit to that. And when the president says the election was rigged, that's what he's talking about. The fix was in. [...] a software system that is used all around the country that is suspect because it came from Hugo Chávez's Venezuela".[83][84][85][86] By October 2022, Johnson said that he had never supported claims that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election.[87]
In December 2020, Johnson led an effort in which 126 Republican U.S. representatives signed an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania,[85][88][89] a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election.[90] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of an election held by another state.[91][92][93]
During the January 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, Johnson was one of 120 U.S. representatives who objected to certifying the 2020 presidential election results from both Arizona and Pennsylvania, while another 19 U.S. representatives objected for one of these states.[94] The New York Times called Johnson "the most important architect of the Electoral College objections" because he had argued to reject the results based on the argument of "constitutional infirmity" and persuaded "about three-quarters" of the objectors to use that rationale...
Yes he contested the results, which was a perfectly legal and constitutional thing to do until the results of the election were certified by Congress
And he then tried to subvert that certification. Wriggle all you want. You are supporting a nasty, despicable, totalitarian theocrat. Just because he wears a suit rather than jackboots does not make him pleasant, honest or even likeable.
---
House Speaker Mike Johnson played a key role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election
"Well before he was elected House speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., played a key role in efforts by then-President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in the 2020 election.
Johnson, who was the GOP caucus vice chair and is an ally of Trump, led the amicus brief signed by more than 100 House Republicans in support of a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate the 2020 election results in four swing states Biden won: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
And he was legally and constitutionally entitled to do so, as it was lodged in December 2020 well before Biden's election was confirmed by Congress
Being epically pedantic, the election results were confirmed by the Electoral College meeting on December 14 2020, certified by the U.S. Congress on January 7, 2021, and Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021.
This point was made by Dan Quayle to Mike Pence: Congress certifies the votes (that they have the right numbers, etc), not count them. If it was the latter, then Pence would have been within his rights to recount them
Yes and there was nothing unconstitutional about launching legal challenges to those state EC results until Congress certified the election, only at the latter point was the new President elected not before
Remind me again: when did Prince Charles become King Charles III?
On the death of his mother (15:10 BST 8 September 2022)
First speech via BBC (18:00 BST 9 September 2022)
When recognised by Accession Council (10:00 BST 10 September 2022)
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
The National Secular Society opposes religious schools and wants to close them all
Interesting you replied like that. Nobody mentioned state subsidy for religous sects' indoctrination of children till you did.
Now you mention it, about time we closed down all sectarian schooling on council tax or central government money.
You also one of the secular fundamentalists I see, denying religious parents (who are also taxpayers who fund state education) the right to choose the schools they want for their children
Religious education is a form of indoctrination where a set of unproveable statements are presented as facts and combined with threatened punishments for disbelief (like burning in hellfire forever) or for some religions, murder or torture or both probably followed by hellfire in the afterlife.
Ruling your "flock" through coercion and fear. And this is supposed to be moral? Admirable?
Make all schools secular. The parents can still choose which school they like, but none of them should be offering mental torture as an option.
As I said, you are a secular fundamentalist extremist.
You want to close all religious schools, despite most getting above average results and deny taxpaying religious parents the freedom to send their children to religious schools.
And the idea the average C of E primary is telling all its pupils all day long they will burn in hell forever is laughable
Just because someone doesn't believe in religious schools it doesn't make them 'secular fundamentalist extremists '. I believe in freedom of religion, but I disagree that any particular religion should be taught in schools, particularly state schools. It might be very mild, but it is a form of indoctrination and should not be part of a democracy. I have no issue with religion outside of education.
Yes it does, it means you want to drive religion out of education and prevent even schools with a religious ethos and with pupils from a similar religious background from existing to suit your secular agenda. It is fundamentally anti parental choice to deny religious parents the choice of good religious schools for their children
I don't have a secular agenda. In fact both my children went to a CofE school so clearly I don't as I could have sent them elsewhere. But religion really should play no part in education. It is not part of education. It is a belief not a fact or skill to be learnt. Parents can still get involved in their local church, Sunday school, etc. Why do they have to have it at school as well which should be about education, not faith.
Where would you draw the line? Would you be happy with pagan schools, voodoo school, rain god worshiping schools, or is it better that schools should focus on education and religion be left to personal choice.
As they want faith based values in the school they send their children to, which in a free nation they are entitled to if they wish.
I would not have a problem with any religion running a school, the more choice the better as far as I am concerned, hence I also support free schools and private schools and grammar schools
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
Honest as the day is long.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician) ...On November 17, 2020, Johnson said: "You know the allegations about these voting machines, some of them being rigged with this software by Dominion, there's a lot of merit to that. And when the president says the election was rigged, that's what he's talking about. The fix was in. [...] a software system that is used all around the country that is suspect because it came from Hugo Chávez's Venezuela".[83][84][85][86] By October 2022, Johnson said that he had never supported claims that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election.[87]
In December 2020, Johnson led an effort in which 126 Republican U.S. representatives signed an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania,[85][88][89] a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election.[90] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of an election held by another state.[91][92][93]
During the January 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, Johnson was one of 120 U.S. representatives who objected to certifying the 2020 presidential election results from both Arizona and Pennsylvania, while another 19 U.S. representatives objected for one of these states.[94] The New York Times called Johnson "the most important architect of the Electoral College objections" because he had argued to reject the results based on the argument of "constitutional infirmity" and persuaded "about three-quarters" of the objectors to use that rationale...
Yes he contested the results, which was a perfectly legal and constitutional thing to do until the results of the election were certified by Congress
And he then tried to subvert that certification. Wriggle all you want. You are supporting a nasty, despicable, totalitarian theocrat. Just because he wears a suit rather than jackboots does not make him pleasant, honest or even likeable.
---
House Speaker Mike Johnson played a key role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election
"Well before he was elected House speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., played a key role in efforts by then-President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in the 2020 election.
Johnson, who was the GOP caucus vice chair and is an ally of Trump, led the amicus brief signed by more than 100 House Republicans in support of a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate the 2020 election results in four swing states Biden won: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
And he was legally and constitutionally entitled to do so, as it was lodged in December 2020 well before Biden's election was confirmed by Congress
Being epically pedantic, the election results were confirmed by the Electoral College meeting on December 14 2020, certified by the U.S. Congress on January 7, 2021, and Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021.
This point was made by Dan Quayle to Mike Pence: Congress certifies the votes (that they have the right numbers, etc), not count them. If it was the latter, then Pence would have been within his rights to recount them
Yes and there was nothing unconstitutional about launching legal challenges to those state EC results until Congress certified the election, only at the latter point was the new President elected not before
Remind me again: when did Prince Charles become King Charles III?
On the death of his mother (15:10 BST 8 September 2022)
First speech via BBC (18:00 BST 9 September 2022)
When recognised by Accession Council (10:00 BST 10 September 2022)
When crowned in the Coronation (6 May 2023)
The UK is a different system. The King becomes King on the death of the previous monarch, affirmed by the accession council and with the ceremonial of the coronation.
The new US President however only gets that role once Congress has certified the presidential election result and he has been inaugrated in late January 2 months after the election
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
He wants the USA to be a Christian nation, it shows how far secularist left liberals like you have now swung that that apparently means he wants to abolish democracy!
“... You don’t want to be in a democracy. Majority rule: not always a good thing,” Johnson said at the First Baptist Church of Haughton, Louisiana, in 2019.
However he also hasn't said he backs abolishing elections either
Oh, that's fine then.
Honestly, do you really beleive that abolishing elections is the only action that shows a disdain for democracy? If this is a sliding scale his type are waaaaay closer to the anti end than pro-end. You cannot even point to things like legal challenges, because the sorts of things the Johnsons of the world got up to included trying to prevent handover after the legal challenges had been exhausted.
By your logic North Korea cannot be criticised for not being keen on elections, since they technically do something pretending to be an election, even though there's nothing remotely democratic about it (and no, you cannot point to how that is different, because you've set the only criteria being not actually abolishing elections, making it clear that any election, however much a sham, still counts).
Almost the entire twitter feed is pro-palestinian coverage.
It is very unfortunate. There’s a bunch of Trotskyite tankies that have gained control over parts of the union, both at UCL and more widely. They are not representative of most local members. There was an almighty kerfuffle after there was an anti-Ukraine motion and an EGM was called at UCL with a very high turnout who then reversed that.
That was what happened in my day. The nutters would vote to give money to the PIRA (or similar) and then instead of 20 people, about a 500-1,000 would turn up, to demolish everything the twats had passed, at the next meeting.
Almost the entire twitter feed is pro-palestinian coverage.
Gives unions a bad name when the people they select to lead them are clearly more obsessed over transnational and other causes over the things that should be a priority for them. The amount of time and energy spent on the other causes indicate the leaders find that far more fulfulling that anything closer to home. Yes, it's in the news right now, but even so it can be just wall to wall.
Cannot entirely blame the members either, they probably had no candidates with alternative views - when I was sent voting information for a union it was just full of barely distinguishable statements competing to bash the government over and over and saying they support the same (mostly unattainable) meaning it was essentially impossible to differentiate beween them on who to pick.
Though they did indicate which other candidates should be selected, so there was allusions to factions, but with no indication of what was the nature of the divisions.
The morons who do this, do they realise that all McDonalds are just franchises who have nothing to do with McDonald's corporate decisions. All you are doing is just f##king up some poor sods small business.
It's not for Palestine or against McDonalds. It's to give them a chance to posteur and perform, and occasionally to give a cover for bitterness and hatred by cloaking it in some trendy cause.
Scheindeir - former comms for Corbyn - the river to sea phrase is not anti-jewish.
"It means all people living together".
Jeez.
They clearly know that is not the case, hence this alternative, nicer version popping up explicitly talking about living in peace. It's an acknowledgement that the regular chant is indeed anti-jewish and tacitly genocidal and needing updating.
The morons who do this, do they realise that all McDonalds are just franchises who have nothing to do with McDonald's corporate decisions. All you are doing is just f##king up some poor sods small business.
There is in the U.K., as in most countries, a high correlation between McDonalds franchise ownership and being a first/second generation immigrant.
This is because they have a policy of talent scouting workers, offering them loans to setup a franchise etc. This provides (certainly used to provide) a route from a low wage job to being a boss without requiring contacts, host country recognised qualifications etc.
So if you attack a McDonalds, you are very often attacking an immigrant.
IIRC, Muslims made up a higher proportion of McDonalds franchise owners in the U.K. than in the general population - for the above reasons.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Evolution is a great idea. Much of the American MAGA Right should give it a try and reach the level of, at least, the mid range primates.
Still below the level of ChatGPT ;-)
Actually, from having worked with various “AI”, a common feature is the lying - inventing facts. Which often resembles the batshit stuff that Trump comes up with.
I think they call it hallucination, because it sounds better than 'just makes stuff up sometimes'?
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Evolution is a great idea. Much of the American MAGA Right should give it a try and reach the level of, at least, the mid range primates.
Still below the level of ChatGPT ;-)
Actually, from having worked with various “AI”, a common feature is the lying - inventing facts. Which often resembles the batshit stuff that Trump comes up with.
I think they call it hallucination, because it sounds better than 'just makes stuff up sometimes'?
I call it “Going Full Trump”
Q - What happened with that code generation test? A - It went full Trump on implementing a red-black tree.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Evolution is a great idea. Much of the American MAGA Right should give it a try and reach the level of, at least, the mid range primates.
Still below the level of ChatGPT ;-)
Actually, from having worked with various “AI”, a common feature is the lying - inventing facts. Which often resembles the batshit stuff that Trump comes up with.
I think they call it hallucination, because it sounds better than 'just makes stuff up sometimes'?
I call it “Going Full Trump”
Q - What happened with that code generation test? A - It went full Trump on implementing a red-black tree.
Pattern matching at its finest, pace Okasaki:
balance :: RB a -> a -> RB a -> RB a balance (T R a x b) y (T R c z d) = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d) balance (T R (T R a x b) y c) z d = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d) balance (T R a x (T R b y c)) z d = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d) balance a x (T R b y (T R c z d)) = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d) balance a x (T R (T R b y c) z d) = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d) balance a x b = T B a x b
Or-patterns would shorten it further, coalescing the right hand side.
There is a lot of US air activity in the greater Gulf region this evening including notable bridging resources. Hard to know if this is routine but just increased in scale with more forces in the area given current tensions or something specific but its a notable tempo.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
I think the point is a little bit more nuanced that that.
We are blessed in England that our faith of avowedly apolitical*. We do not “make windows into men’s souls”. But Islam was and always has been expressly militaristic and political - it was utterly tied in with the expansion of Medina.
There is a huge difference between, say, an anti-abortion** fundamentalist trying to use the democratic process to impose their moral views on others and a religion that is constructed around violent conquest and conversion at the point of a sword.
* As is quite right for the Tory Party at prayer
** I hate the terminology. I rather assume that very few people are actively “pro abortion” or “anti life”
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
The National Secular Society opposes religious schools and wants to close them all
There's probably no religion that is less religious than the Church of England. That's why people who complain about, say, CoE primary schools being religious come across as so ridiculous.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
Gay people. Unless they enjoy being pushed off tall buildings. We saw what IS did to gay people in those places they momentarily held. Islam is a threat to gay people wherever it exists, let alone fundamentalists.
And women
I mean, don't women literally have a fractional worth to men in Islamic law? Like you need several women to equal one man as a witness, and all sorts of shit like that?
Apparently so. In many respects their worth is deemed to be ¼ of that of a man.
Why any woman would want to be a muslim is beyond me. Seriously. Why would you willingly subordinate yourself to that attitude?
And yet there are a fair number of female Muslim converts, and not all as erratic as Sinead O'connor. Similarly I know a fair number of westernised Muslim families where a daughter adopts the Niqab to her parents horror.
A lot of religions are systemically misogynistic, homophobic and oppressive. Indeed Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism are in the frame too.
Some people just like a clear set of instructions on how to live, imposed from above. Not everyone can cope with freedom, and some people feel so threatened by freedom that they want to kill it.
It isn't just an Islamist issue. We have had the same here in the past.
So you’re cool with the women quarter value, so long as some subjugated women don’t complain too much?
No. I am not a Islamist.
The paradox is that some women do choose to be, and I was exploring the reasons why.
Do you ever worry about your views being parallel to those of Islamists?
How do you force people to change their beliefs?
Torture doesn’t really work very well, and is considered a bit rude as well. And in these environmental times, trying to run electric shocks off solar cells is a real fiddle.
Brain washing doesn’t really exist, despite the CIA spending a fortune on LSD.
Old fashioned “burn all the heretics” is a possible. But how do you get the permits for public cremations on an open fire? The particulates from that would be something fierce.
Particulates from an auto-da-fe are the equivalent of calories in food from someone else’s plate
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s a pretty fundamentalist view from a UK perspective.
Not for UK evangelicals it isn't
Every single one of the UK evangelicals I have met believe in evolution
Corbynista have clearly got a shared line to take this evening:
Andrew Fisher @FisherAndrew79 Louise Ellman then says she wants a two-state solution, which is exactly what @AndyMcDonaldMP was quite clearly calling for:
“We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty” #Newsnight
I wonder how they would react if a right winger used the phrase "final solution" and claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the context was different.
So you think that the concept of between “the river and the sea” would represent a “final solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict?
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the USA. Apparently the new Speaker they elected is something of a fundamentalist himself.
He is a Southern Baptists but then that is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, hardly on the fringes
He is personally anti gay marriage and pro life, so what, many religious people are including the Pope, not just Baptists, even the Tories are hardly pro trans at the moment, gun rights are protected under the US constitution.
He has hardly advocated abolishing democracy either, he was elected himself to his position and his seat
Honest as the day is long.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician) ...On November 17, 2020, Johnson said: "You know the allegations about these voting machines, some of them being rigged with this software by Dominion, there's a lot of merit to that. And when the president says the election was rigged, that's what he's talking about. The fix was in. [...] a software system that is used all around the country that is suspect because it came from Hugo Chávez's Venezuela".[83][84][85][86] By October 2022, Johnson said that he had never supported claims that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election.[87]
In December 2020, Johnson led an effort in which 126 Republican U.S. representatives signed an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania,[85][88][89] a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election.[90] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge the results of an election held by another state.[91][92][93]
During the January 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, Johnson was one of 120 U.S. representatives who objected to certifying the 2020 presidential election results from both Arizona and Pennsylvania, while another 19 U.S. representatives objected for one of these states.[94] The New York Times called Johnson "the most important architect of the Electoral College objections" because he had argued to reject the results based on the argument of "constitutional infirmity" and persuaded "about three-quarters" of the objectors to use that rationale...
Yes he contested the results, which was a perfectly legal and constitutional thing to do until the results of the election were certified by Congress
And he then tried to subvert that certification. Wriggle all you want. You are supporting a nasty, despicable, totalitarian theocrat. Just because he wears a suit rather than jackboots does not make him pleasant, honest or even likeable.
---
House Speaker Mike Johnson played a key role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election
"Well before he was elected House speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., played a key role in efforts by then-President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in the 2020 election.
Johnson, who was the GOP caucus vice chair and is an ally of Trump, led the amicus brief signed by more than 100 House Republicans in support of a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate the 2020 election results in four swing states Biden won: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
And he was legally and constitutionally entitled to do so, as it was lodged in December 2020 well before Biden's election was confirmed by Congress
Being epically pedantic, the election results were confirmed by the Electoral College meeting on December 14 2020, certified by the U.S. Congress on January 7, 2021, and Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021.
This point was made by Dan Quayle to Mike Pence: Congress certifies the votes (that they have the right numbers, etc), not count them. If it was the latter, then Pence would have been within his rights to recount them
Yes and there was nothing unconstitutional about launching legal challenges to those state EC results until Congress certified the election, only at the latter point was the new President elected not before
Remind me again: when did Prince Charles become King Charles III?
On the death of his mother (15:10 BST 8 September 2022)
First speech via BBC (18:00 BST 9 September 2022)
When recognised by Accession Council (10:00 BST 10 September 2022)
When crowned in the Coronation (6 May 2023)
British sovereignty moves faster than the speed of light
Cummings is up tomorrow at the whitewash inquiry into how well the government of Britain coped with covid.
Could be box office.
Popcorn ready...
Why call it a “whitewash inquiry”? It’s revealed plenty of critical material so far, and it’s only just getting started.
The way the KCs handled the Oxford evidence-based meds guy was a disgrace.
And seems they are not going anywhere near asking the actual question that matters:
Why did Sweden do far better than us?
Not even interviewing Tegnell.
It's a sham. Total whitewash as far as the real substance is concerned. All this bollx about who said who was a fat waste of space on WhatsApp is amusing and a bit relevant but it is not the issue that actaually matters for the next pandemic.
Sweden didn’t do far better than us.
Also, there’s a helluva lot more Inquiry to come.
Do they have a whole generation of kids with a mass of problems thanks to lockdown of schools for months?
Sweden actually had quite significant disruption in schools, contrary to the narrative. All upper secondary schools were shut for around five months, and in the lower secondary schools the high rate of infection among teachers meant around 50% of teaching was online, which was in some ways rather more disruptive than what we had here as it was unpredictable and so chaotic.
They managed to keep primary schools mostly open. However, you should also remember they have much smaller class sizes than we do anyway (which is something I've been advocating for years) around 21 as against 28, so it was much easier to contain any outbreaks.
It is also worth pointing out that the reason schools were kept open is not because of some mythical 'Swedish model' but because the Swedish schools system is independent of the government and several senior figures didn't want to shut their little empire. If OFSTED had been in charge of schools during the pandemic (which is the equivalent) schools would have stayed open. Not because it was the right or wrong decision, but so that twat Spielman could strut around saying how wonderful she was.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
I think the point is a little bit more nuanced that that.
We are blessed in England that our faith of avowedly apolitical*. We do not “make windows into men’s souls”. But Islam was and always has been expressly militaristic and political - it was utterly tied in with the expansion of Medina.
There is a huge difference between, say, an anti-abortion** fundamentalist trying to use the democratic process to impose their moral views on others and a religion that is constructed around violent conquest and conversion at the point of a sword.
* As is quite right for the Tory Party at prayer
** I hate the terminology. I rather assume that very few people are actively “pro abortion” or “anti life”
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
I think the point is a little bit more nuanced that that.
We are blessed in England that our faith of avowedly apolitical*. We do not “make windows into men’s souls”. But Islam was and always has been expressly militaristic and political - it was utterly tied in with the expansion of Medina.
There is a huge difference between, say, an anti-abortion** fundamentalist trying to use the democratic process to impose their moral views on others and a religion that is constructed around violent conquest and conversion at the point of a sword.
* As is quite right for the Tory Party at prayer
** I hate the terminology. I rather assume that very few people are actively “pro abortion” or “anti life”
I take it the washing machine sales business isn't going so well for him, then?
Not totally inconceivable it could be a Tory gain on election night.
Unlikely. Webbe has zero personal vote, as quite apart from her expulsion from the party she is invisible and useless as an MP.
Keith Vaz has a significant following though and could get a large personal vote, but rather than split the Labour vote, it would be more likely to split the anti-Labour vote.
There is a strong Hindu vote in the seat, but not all Hindus are taken by Hindutva militancy, and half the Asian population are Muslim or Sikh and even less keen. Rishis maternal grandparents live (lived?) in the Constituency.
The infighting in the Leicester Labour Party not very edifying for anyone, but even so I would expect an increased Labour majority.
Rational Muslims probably have the second most, after Jews, to fear of Islamism
I think the problem is that islam is a political ideology in some parts as much as a religious one. I am afraid of radical islam for the same reason I am afraid of fascism, and for much the same reason. I've no such fear of Christians or Zoroastrians.
Where we in the west have made our bloomer, is in trying to be tolerant and diverse to all religions, which is admirable, without acknowledging the political aspects and tenents of radical Islam. What is happening at the moment is not about religion, it is about fascism. We believe fascism looks like Herr Flick in his dark uniform and leather coat. Unfortunately it takes other forms.
In a secular society then being tolerant and diverse to all religions is entirely reasonable, since if society is secular people can choose their own religion (or none) and it doesn't affect anyone else.
The clash of cultures comes when people oppose secularism and want their faith imposed by force as it is the "word of Yahweh/God/Allah/Buddha/FSM" himself.
Whether that be radical Islamists, radical Christians, radical Buddhist/Jews/Hindus/Vegans/whatever anyone who tries to impose their fundamentalism onto others is a problem.
The National Secular Society opposes religious schools and wants to close them all
Interesting you replied like that. Nobody mentioned state subsidy for religous sects' indoctrination of children till you did.
Now you mention it, about time we closed down all sectarian schooling on council tax or central government money.
You also one of the secular fundamentalists I see, denying religious parents (who are also taxpayers who fund state education) the right to choose the schools they want for their children
Religious education is a form of indoctrination where a set of unproveable statements are presented as facts and combined with threatened punishments for disbelief (like burning in hellfire forever) or for some religions, murder or torture or both probably followed by hellfire in the afterlife.
Ruling your "flock" through coercion and fear. And this is supposed to be moral? Admirable?
Make all schools secular. The parents can still choose which school they like, but none of them should be offering mental torture as an option.
As I said, you are a secular fundamentalist extremist.
You want to close all religious schools, despite most getting above average results and deny taxpaying religious parents the freedom to send their children to religious schools.
And the idea the average C of E primary is telling all its pupils all day long they will burn in hell forever is laughable
Just because someone doesn't believe in religious schools it doesn't make them 'secular fundamentalist extremists '. I believe in freedom of religion, but I disagree that any particular religion should be taught in schools, particularly state schools. It might be very mild, but it is a form of indoctrination and should not be part of a democracy. I have no issue with religion outside of education.
Yes it does, it means you want to drive religion out of education and prevent even schools with a religious ethos and with pupils from a similar religious background from existing to suit your secular agenda. It is fundamentally anti parental choice to deny religious parents the choice of good religious schools for their children
I don't have a secular agenda. In fact both my children went to a CofE school so clearly I don't as I could have sent them elsewhere. But religion really should play no part in education. It is not part of education. It is a belief not a fact or skill to be learnt. Parents can still get involved in their local church, Sunday school, etc. Why do they have to have it at school as well which should be about education, not faith.
Where would you draw the line? Would you be happy with pagan schools, voodoo school, rain god worshiping schools, or is it better that schools should focus on education and religion be left to personal choice.
As they want faith based values in the school they send their children to, which in a free nation they are entitled to if they wish.
I would not have a problem with any religion running a school, the more choice the better as far as I am concerned, hence I also support free schools and private schools and grammar schools
Schools shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of faith. Publicly funded schools especially.
Also what is the mechanism for converting a state funded faith school into a non-discriminatory school if the majority of parents at the school want that?
Comments
So you either go for fire'n'fear, or you do the subtler clever thing, which is to persuade them that the new beliefs are consistent with the old ones, even if there's some intellectual armwaving to do on the way.
The same principle works in politics, of course.
https://members.parliament.uk//members/commons?SearchText=&PartyId=8&Gender=Any&ForParliament=Current&ShowAdvanced=False
"It means all people living together".
Jeez.
This point was made by Dan Quayle to Mike Pence: Congress certifies the votes (that they have the right numbers, etc), not count them. If it was the latter, then Pence would have been within his rights to recount them
This is a brilliant piece on the radical left protest movement focused mainly on the US.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/western-leftists-have-lost-the-plot
'Swedish workers are not going to start a revolution, because Swedish social democracy is pretty damn nice.
This leaves Western leftists without much to fight for. Sure, some claim that African and Latin American countries are still “colonized” because they don’t get paid enough for their natural resource exports, but very few people actually believe that, and even fewer care enough to march in the street. Nor do most people think that climate change is going to force a dramatic reordering of society — we’re just going to build some solar panels and electric cars and stuff. Most actual imperialism in the world is now done by countries like China and Russia that are opposed to the West (and Western leftists only ever oppose the West). And despite continuous leftist shrieking that neoliberalism has left both the world and America impoverished, on some level everyone knows that global poverty has plunged and that most Americans are materially secure.
The Palestinian cause was different; it was an exception to this end-of-history ennui. Here was real obvious oppression instead of some hand-wavey theory. Here was a liberation struggle that could be (somewhat) plausibly depicted as decolonial. Israel’s alliance with the U.S. makes it plausibly part of the West, meaning Western leftists feel OK opposing it. And because most mainstream progressives instinctively support Israel’s continued existence, this was an issue that allowed Western leftists to draw a bright distinction between themselves and the left-of-center establishment.'
End of history ennui. Quite.
And as for the delayed well I do get stuck in but it's getting a bit golden age Comment is Free about it on here.
And it’s 25% for Plaid Cymru!!!!!!
Andrew Fisher
@FisherAndrew79
Louise Ellman then says she wants a two-state solution, which is exactly what @AndyMcDonaldMP was quite clearly calling for:
“We won’t rest until we have justice, until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty” #Newsnight
Where would you draw the line? Would you be happy with pagan schools, voodoo school, rain god worshiping schools, or is it better that schools should focus on education and religion be left to personal choice.
Could be box office.
Popcorn ready...
They would be hysterical.
That is a defining principle of what he believes in as a politician, it doesn't mean he is trying to abolish all elections
- https://www.newsweek.com/speaker-mike-johnson-seems-like-nice-guy-hes-also-threat-democracy-opinion-1838360
https://twitter.com/UJS_UK/status/1719056745949986908
It supports the University strikes over pay.
Almost the entire twitter feed is pro-palestinian coverage.
However he also hasn't said he backs abolishing elections either
And seems they are not going anywhere near asking the actual question that matters:
Why did Sweden do far better than us?
Not even interviewing Tegnell.
It's a sham. Total whitewash as far as the real substance is concerned. All this bollx about who said who was a fat waste of space on WhatsApp is amusing and a bit relevant but it is not the issue that actaually matters for the next pandemic.
Be amusing if the KC opened questioning by asking 'how was the parking at Barnard Castle in the middle of the plague?'
"Johnson has said: "My faith informs everything I do."[134] He has said that early in his married life, he and his wife took in a 14-year-old African-American boy and consider him part of their family."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Personal_life
Much more here: https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-mike-johnson-speaks-out-about-adopted-black-son-1838599 (I should add that Michael was never formally adopted.)
Off and on, I have known Jehovah Witnesses, casually. To say the least, I don't share their theology. But those I have known have all been peaceful, productive people. So I don't have any problem getting along with them.
(Reminder: Barack Obama said that he was opposed to gay marriage -- for religious reasons -- not that long ago.)
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1719121763932516440
Also, there’s a helluva lot more Inquiry to come.
https://x.com/crimeldn/status/1719097628082782503
Where it could get challenging is if he experiences a number of resignations, which could give rise to the divided party mantra, which could in itself give the electorate something to question. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near that yet, and I don’t expect us to get there. The Labour Party are now gearing up for power. There will be enough key people, even if they think Starmer hasn’t handled things well, who will look the other way at the moment, because they are now within touching distance of power and influence.
I would not have a problem with any religion running a school, the more choice the better as far as I am concerned, hence I also support free schools and private schools and grammar schools
The new US President however only gets that role once Congress has certified the presidential election result and he has been inaugrated in late January 2 months after the election
Honestly, do you really beleive that abolishing elections is the only action that shows a disdain for democracy? If this is a sliding scale his type are waaaaay closer to the anti end than pro-end. You cannot even point to things like legal challenges, because the sorts of things the Johnsons of the world got up to included trying to prevent handover after the legal challenges had been exhausted.
By your logic North Korea cannot be criticised for not being keen on elections, since they technically do something pretending to be an election, even though there's nothing remotely democratic about it (and no, you cannot point to how that is different, because you've set the only criteria being not actually abolishing elections, making it clear that any election, however much a sham, still counts).
Cannot entirely blame the members either, they probably had no candidates with alternative views - when I was sent voting information for a union it was just full of barely distinguishable statements competing to bash the government over and over and saying they support the same (mostly unattainable) meaning it was essentially impossible to differentiate beween them on who to pick.
Though they did indicate which other candidates should be selected, so there was allusions to factions, but with no indication of what was the nature of the divisions.
City’s Labour mayor Sir Peter Soulsby says he expects both former Labour MPs to stand against official candidate, splitting vote"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/30/keith-vaz-and-claudia-webbe-could-stand-as-independents-in-leicester-east
Which actually shows more awareness than usual.
This is because they have a policy of talent scouting workers, offering them loans to setup a franchise etc. This provides (certainly used to provide) a route from a low wage job to being a boss without requiring contacts, host country recognised qualifications etc.
So if you attack a McDonalds, you are very often attacking an immigrant.
IIRC, Muslims made up a higher proportion of McDonalds franchise owners in the U.K. than in the general population - for the above reasons.
Q - What happened with that code generation test?
A - It went full Trump on implementing a red-black tree.
balance :: RB a -> a -> RB a -> RB a
balance (T R a x b) y (T R c z d) = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d)
balance (T R (T R a x b) y c) z d = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d)
balance (T R a x (T R b y c)) z d = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d)
balance a x (T R b y (T R c z d)) = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d)
balance a x (T R (T R b y c) z d) = T R (T B a x b) y (T B c z d)
balance a x b = T B a x b
Or-patterns would shorten it further, coalescing the right hand side.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1719151230709109067?s=20
We are blessed in England that our faith of avowedly apolitical*. We do not “make windows into men’s souls”. But Islam was and always has been expressly militaristic and political - it was utterly tied in with the expansion of Medina.
There is a huge difference between, say, an anti-abortion** fundamentalist trying to use the democratic process to impose their moral views on others and a religion that is constructed around violent conquest and conversion at the point of a sword.
* As is quite right for the Tory Party at prayer
** I hate the terminology. I rather assume that very few people are actively “pro abortion” or “anti life”
Another day, another two big Labour opinion poll leads
20% with Redfield & Wilton
21% Deltapoll
It's a shame we can't just get this over with. It would be better for the tories in the medium and long term too.
They managed to keep primary schools mostly open. However, you should also remember they have much smaller class sizes than we do anyway (which is something I've been advocating for years) around 21 as against 28, so it was much easier to contain any outbreaks.
It is also worth pointing out that the reason schools were kept open is not because of some mythical 'Swedish model' but because the Swedish schools system is independent of the government and several senior figures didn't want to shut their little empire. If OFSTED had been in charge of schools during the pandemic (which is the equivalent) schools would have stayed open. Not because it was the right or wrong decision, but so that twat Spielman could strut around saying how wonderful she was.
Welcome back, Mr. Smithson.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=362162
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/09/labour-poll-lead-tories-smallest-since-rishi-sunak-elected/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/11/rishi-sunak-labour-poll-margin-narrow-prime-minister/
Keith Vaz has a significant following though and could get a large personal vote, but rather than split the Labour vote, it would be more likely to split the anti-Labour vote.
There is a strong Hindu vote in the seat, but not all Hindus are taken by Hindutva militancy, and half the Asian population are Muslim or Sikh and even less keen. Rishis maternal grandparents live (lived?) in the Constituency.
The infighting in the Leicester Labour Party not very edifying for anyone, but even so I would expect an increased Labour majority.
Also what is the mechanism for converting a state funded faith school into a non-discriminatory school if the majority of parents at the school want that?