Oh, the God-botherers and Warcraft are not the main issue specifically in the USA. They have plenty of other bigoted positions on abortion, gay marriage and civil rights. And besides, given the falsity of religious faith, it's unsurprising that one of the 'faithful' takes a different bigoted approach to another.
You're right about one thing. I am prejudiced against god-botherers. The cause of, and reason for, almost every war ever fought.
Nationalism is responsible for most wars ever fought. Religion might be vaguely connected to many of them, but it wasn't the cause. Only the most prejudiced atheist could think that.
Nationalism and religion are almost inseparably linked. One nation, under God. Etc etc etc Cry God for Harry, England and St George The sycophantic references to God in every US presidential address Muslim expansionism crusades in response The Aztec and Inca empires Empire building and missionaryism as Empire building in disguise. Etc etc etc
The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union?
I believe I said almost all wars
The First World War, the Second World War, the Mongol Conquests, the Manchu Conquest, the Russian Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars... you really believe any of these were caused by religion?
WW1, yes undeniably WW2, less so Mongol conquests, yes! Manchu, not sure, need to look into the background of it a little more Russian Civil war, I'll give you that one, although it was a war ON religion, and the excesses of religious leadership and autocracy. Napoleonic War - errrrr, yes, self-evidently.
What structural reforms has the US performed since 2010 ?
They've re-regulated their financial sector, brought in new capital limits and ring-fenced certain types of activity. The healthcare sector has been hugely transformed, with medical providers now being paid by outcomes rather than inputs, and broader insurance coverage significantly reducing unnecessary and emergency costs. The automotive sector was completely restructured, with Chapter 11 bankruptcies and agreements made between all the stakeholders to dramatically reduce liabilities. The transport sector has been dramatically helped by serious investment in crumbling infrastructure, putting it on a much better long term footing.
What long term entitlement cuts has the US performed since 2010 ?
The main long term entitlement issue in the US is Medicare, which faced a huge range of cost containment under Obamacare. Remember the Republicans campaigning against them?
How many UK cities have gone bankrupt since 2010 ?
None, because they're not allowed to borrow any money, so it's impossible for them to. The fact that you're trying to hold this up above economy-wide growth shows how desperate your side of the argument is.
Oh, the God-botherers and Warcraft are not the main issue specifically in the USA. They have plenty of other bigoted positions on abortion, gay marriage and civil rights. And besides, given the falsity of religious faith, it's unsurprising that one of the 'faithful' takes a different bigoted approach to another.
You're right about one thing. I am prejudiced against god-botherers. The cause of, and reason for, almost every war ever fought.
Nationalism is responsible for most wars ever fought. Religion might be vaguely connected to many of them, but it wasn't the cause. Only the most prejudiced atheist could think that.
Nationalism and religion are almost inseparably linked. One nation, under God. Etc etc etc Cry God for Harry, England and St George The sycophantic references to God in every US presidential address Muslim expansionism crusades in response The Aztec and Inca empires Empire building and missionaryism as Empire building in disguise. Etc etc etc
The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union?
I believe I said almost all wars
The First World War, the Second World War, the Mongol Conquests, the Manchu Conquest, the Russian Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars... you really believe any of these were caused by religion?
WW1, yes undeniably WW2, less so Mongol conquests, yes! Manchu, not sure, need to look into the background of it a little more Russian Civil war, I'll give you that one, although it was a war ON religion, and the excesses of religious leadership and autocracy. Napoleonic War - errrrr, yes, self-evidently.
Neither Napoleon nor Genhis Khan waged war in the name of a religion, or sought to impose any form of religion on the conquered peoples. Both men were very religiously tolerant.
I wonder if the lasting impression the public has of the hacking trial is the cost. 35 million so far and it could rise.
The Mail reports defence barristers can claim back sums from the government if their clients are acquitted, and the sums NI spent on legal teams was gargantuan.
Oh, the God-botherers and Warcraft are not the main issue specifically in the USA. They have plenty of other bigoted positions on abortion, gay marriage and civil rights. And besides, given the falsity of religious faith, it's unsurprising that one of the 'faithful' takes a different bigoted approach to another.
You're right about one thing. I am prejudiced against god-botherers. The cause of, and reason for, almost every war ever fought.
Nationalism is responsible for most wars ever fought. Religion might be vaguely connected to many of them, but it wasn't the cause. Only the most prejudiced atheist could think that.
Nationalism and religion are almost inseparably linked. One nation, under God. Etc etc etc Cry God for Harry, England and St George The sycophantic references to God in every US presidential address Muslim expansionism crusades in response The Aztec and Inca empires Empire building and missionaryism as Empire building in disguise. Etc etc etc
The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union?
I believe I said almost all wars
The First World War, the Second World War, the Mongol Conquests, the Manchu Conquest, the Russian Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars... you really believe any of these were caused by religion?
WW1, yes undeniably WW2, less so Mongol conquests, yes! Manchu, not sure, need to look into the background of it a little more Russian Civil war, I'll give you that one, although it was a war ON religion, and the excesses of religious leadership and autocracy. Napoleonic War - errrrr, yes, self-evidently.
Neither Napoleon nor Genhis Khan waged war in the name of a religion, or to impose any form of religion on the conquered peoples. Both men were very religiously tolerant.
This is true, but of course it was, in the case of the Mongol Empire, that the massive mixture of religions defined much of the internal politics and influenced expansion, to the point of conversion, eventually, to Islam. With regard to Napoleonic, his rise grew out of the religious anarchy of the French Revolution and the extremely odd religious superstitions and sects that wrecked the country, which was itself a direct result of the God-inspired autocracy of Louis.
Oh, the God-botherers and Warcraft are not the main issue specifically in the USA. They have plenty of other bigoted positions on abortion, gay marriage and civil rights. And besides, given the falsity of religious faith, it's unsurprising that one of the 'faithful' takes a different bigoted approach to another.
You're right about one thing. I am prejudiced against god-botherers. The cause of, and reason for, almost every war ever fought.
I typed out a fairly long and sensible reply but once again this wretched comment system asked me to edit someone else's comments before I can add my own. What a load of crap this Vanilla is. It is the sort of discussion system that Ed Miliband would choose.
Anyway, since I can't argue my case, Mr. Woolie, can just say you are wrong and when you let me know the name of your pub I shall come up there to argue the point in detail?
Let me know your contact details and I'll let you know. I'm not up for posting my address on here! I look forward to battling you in person.
Mr. Woolie, I have sent you a message via the messaging system of this Vanilla thingy. Now off to do some ironing.
Can you even point to one serious historian that points to religion as a major cause of WWI or the Napoleonic Wars?
No. Can you point to one country that took part in that war that did not persecute it in the name of God and his chosen leader? Wars do not have to be fought in the name of religion for religion to be responsible.
If they [Abbvie] can't get this deal done then they will become a take over target by the end of 2015.
Why? It's basically just what's left of Solvay Pharma + Fournier + Knoll + the leftovers of Humira. The HCV franchise has potential, but Gilead is caning that market.
They will be going on the cheap for the reasons you mention. If Pfizer had tried to buy Astra a couple of years ago then they would have got in without any of the kerfuffle we just witnessed, and AbbVie don't seem to have any intention to expand their own pipeline. They would still be profitable, but there margins extremely diminished by the cliff. A cheap buyout and elimination of competition by one of the majors. If they dont get their hands on Shire then they need to invest some serious money into.rebuilding their pipeline and buying in risky IP from smaller companies and start ups.
Socrates, Sean F. Thank you. Saved me the trouble.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
Soldiers are more likely to be religious believers than the population as a whole. Lots of them pray before battle, and almost any army conducts services, sacrifices, auspices etc. before fighting.
But, for a war to be a religious war, I think religion has to be the main motive for it. That means that the war is fought to spread one's own creed/eliminate heresy/punish another State for insults to the gods etc. There have been wars that have been motivated by such grounds, but most have other motives.
Oh, the God-botherers and Warcraft are not the main issue specifically in the USA. They have plenty of other bigoted positions on abortion, gay marriage and civil rights. And besides, given the falsity of religious faith, it's unsurprising that one of the 'faithful' takes a different bigoted approach to another.
You're right about one thing. I am prejudiced against god-botherers. The cause of, and reason for, almost every war ever fought.
I typed out a fairly long and sensible reply but once again this wretched comment system asked me to edit someone else's comments before I can add my own. What a load of crap this Vanilla is. It is the sort of discussion system that Ed Miliband would choose.
Anyway, since I can't argue my case, Mr. Woolie, can just say you are wrong and when you let me know the name of your pub I shall come up there to argue the point in detail?
Let me know your contact details and I'll let you know. I'm not up for posting my address on here! I look forward to battling you in person.
Mr. Woolie, I have sent you a message via the messaging system of this Vanilla thingy. Now off to do some ironing.
Okey cokey, I'll log into vanilla later, I use the old system
This is true, but of course it was, in the case of the Mongol Empire, that the massive mixture of religions defined much of the internal politics and influenced expansion, to the point of conversion, eventually, to Islam. With regard to Napoleonic, his rise grew out of the religious anarchy of the French Revolution and the extremely odd religious superstitions and sects that wrecked the country, which was itself a direct result of the God-inspired autocracy of Louis.
This is so tenuous and idiotic that there's almost no point replying to you. The mixture of religious belief had absolutely zero part to play in Genghis Khan attacking the rest of the world - the guy was religiously tolerant and wanted to learn from philosophers of all religions. Napoleon's rise came about due to the purges (the vast majority non-religious) of the Terror. And anyway, the guy's rise to power isn't the reason for his wars abroad. Seriously, name one historian who believes religion was a major cause of the Napoleonic Wars. You can't, because its a Tapestry-style crackpot theory.
If they [Abbvie] can't get this deal done then they will become a take over target by the end of 2015.
Why? It's basically just what's left of Solvay Pharma + Fournier + Knoll + the leftovers of Humira. The HCV franchise has potential, but Gilead is caning that market.
They will be going on the cheap for the reasons you mention. If Pfizer had tried to buy Astra a couple of years ago then they would have got in without any of the kerfuffle we just witnessed, and AbbVie don't seem to have any intention to expand their own pipeline. They would still be profitable, but there margins extremely diminished by the cliff. A cheap buyout and elimination of competition by one of the majors. If they dont get their hands on Shire then they need to invest some serious money into.rebuilding their pipeline and buying in risky IP from smaller companies and start ups.
Gilead really does seem to be caning it.
I'm always sceptical of that approach. See link for a good reason why.
Socrates, Sean F. Thank you. Saved me the trouble.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
That makes the point rather nicely. If religion had nothing to do with the nations persecuting the war, why are the dead of the Christian nations buried in fields marked with the religious symbol of the cross, with no regard to the individual soldiers belief, or otherwise? Religion and war, best buddies,
Can you even point to one serious historian that points to religion as a major cause of WWI or the Napoleonic Wars?
No. Can you point to one country that took part in that war that did not persecute it in the name of God and his chosen leader? Wars do not have to be fought in the name of religion for religion to be responsible.
Your second sentence undermines the first one. But anyway, sure: the Batavian Republic. But I'm glad you accept that you can't find a historian that agrees with you.
By the way, I have a new theory. Breakfasts cause wars. Can you name a war where the soldiers didn't regularly eat breakfast throughout?
Socrates, Sean F. Thank you. Saved me the trouble.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
That makes the point rather nicely. If religion had nothing to do with the nations persecuting the war, why are the dead of the Christian nations buried in fields marked with the religious symbol of the cross, with no regard to the individual soldiers belief, or otherwise? Religion and war, best buddies,
Because people who are about to risk their lives in battle, like many people who face the risk of sudden death, are very likely to pray beforehand, and people who've died are mostly interred in religious ceremonies.
Socrates, Sean F. Thank you. Saved me the trouble.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
That makes the point rather nicely. If religion had nothing to do with the nations persecuting the war, why are the dead of the Christian nations buried in fields marked with the religious symbol of the cross, with no regard to the individual soldiers belief, or otherwise? Religion and war, best buddies,
As we're on religion (not sure if that's due to the atheist consigned to a mental hospital in Nigeria or not), a related aside: I chose Thaddeus as my pen name partly because he's my favourite disciple.
Never whined about being equal to Simon Peter, like James and John did, never denied Jesus three times like Peter did, never had Jesus nailed to a large piece of wood like Judas did.
Thaddeus just got on with some good, honest, discipling.
Socrates, Sean F. Thank you. Saved me the trouble.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
That makes the point rather nicely. If religion had nothing to do with the nations persecuting the war, why are the dead of the Christian nations buried in fields marked with the religious symbol of the cross, with no regard to the individual soldiers belief, or otherwise? Religion and war, best buddies,
This is true, but of course it was, in the case of the Mongol Empire, that the massive mixture of religions defined much of the internal politics and influenced expansion, to the point of conversion, eventually, to Islam. With regard to Napoleonic, his rise grew out of the religious anarchy of the French Revolution and the extremely odd religious superstitions and sects that wrecked the country, which was itself a direct result of the God-inspired autocracy of Louis.
This is so tenuous and idiotic that there's almost no point replying to you. The mixture of religious belief had absolutely zero part to play in Genghis Khan attacking the rest of the world - the guy was religiously tolerant and wanted to learn from philosophers of all religions. Napoleon's rise came about due to the purges (the vast majority non-religious) of the Terror. And anyway, the guy's rise to power isn't the reason for his wars abroad. Seriously, name one historian who believes religion was a major cause of the Napoleonic Wars. You can't, because its a Tapestry-style crackpot theory.
A quote from Napoleon It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon.
Yep, religion had no part in Napoleons empire building. He just used whatever belief was convenient to subdue the masses.
Mongol Empire - I'm on thin ice here, admittedly, although the empires later conversion to Islam does rather imply a religious overture to things in its later incarnation.
Kevin Maguire + The Political Editor of New Statesman = (estimate readers)
BBC headline = (estimate readers, viewers, and listeners)
calculate net effect of both.
You are right to highlight how the BBC is towing the Guardian's preferred spin. I've just been out and had Radio 5 on and in between the tennis, the news headlines said Cameron faced "tough" questions from Ed Miliband at PMQs, he was "forced to apologise" again.
Note the decision to use "tough" and "forced" in their headlines.
Then they played Cammo's apology straight in to Ed's first question which got in the crim in Downing street 'headliner' - so it sounded like Cammo was apologising to Ed and then left Ed's Q unanswered as they didn't play Cammo's answer to the first question.
John Pienaar then came on and said as you've just heard Cameron's answer was that Leveson Enquiry cleared him, EXCEPT we didn't, the only piece from Cammo was the apology to the Tory softball first Q
Then they discussed how the judge was angry with Cameron and "other politicians" (no mention of Ed's crim in downing st piece) and focussed solely on Cameron's apology being iffy.
All of thid is true reporting BUT it was great editing and sounded spot on for Ed....
I think one aspect where Cameron is misfortunate about this whole incident is his name...
Cameron/Coulson - the closeness of the names both 7 letters and starting with C, ending "on" could definitely feed into the subconscious when reading about the stories.
Socrates, Sean F. Thank you. Saved me the trouble.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
That makes the point rather nicely. If religion had nothing to do with the nations persecuting the war, why are the dead of the Christian nations buried in fields marked with the religious symbol of the cross, with no regard to the individual soldiers belief, or otherwise? Religion and war, best buddies,
All marked with religious symbolism. As if burying your dead according to superstition will wipe away the guilt of sending them to die. Were those graves originally marked with the soldiers chosen faith? Or were they originally like the unknown soldiers, Marked with the host nations chosen superstition?
As was said, both sides in WW1 thought God was on their side to say religion had no part in WW1 is simplistic and factually incorrect.
I think one aspect where Cameron is misfortunate about this whole incident is his name...
Cameron/Coulson - the closeness of the names both 7 letters and starting with C, ending "on" could definitely feed into the subconscious when reading about the stories.
Also "Conservative" has a related vibe, they have some nasty psychic branding shit going on there.
This is true, but of course it was, in the case of the Mongol Empire, that the massive mixture of religions defined much of the internal politics and influenced expansion, to the point of conversion, eventually, to Islam. With regard to Napoleonic, his rise grew out of the religious anarchy of the French Revolution and the extremely odd religious superstitions and sects that wrecked the country, which was itself a direct result of the God-inspired autocracy of Louis.
This is so tenuous and idiotic that there's almost no point replying to you. The mixture of religious belief had absolutely zero part to play in Genghis Khan attacking the rest of the world - the guy was religiously tolerant and wanted to learn from philosophers of all religions. Napoleon's rise came about due to the purges (the vast majority non-religious) of the Terror. And anyway, the guy's rise to power isn't the reason for his wars abroad. Seriously, name one historian who believes religion was a major cause of the Napoleonic Wars. You can't, because its a Tapestry-style crackpot theory.
A quote from Napoleon It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon.
Yep, religion had no part in Napoleons empire building. He just used whatever belief was convenient to subdue the masses.
Mongol Empire - I'm on thin ice here, admittedly, although the empires later conversion to Islam does rather imply a religious overture to things in its later incarnation.
You're using a quote saying that an irreligious leader espousing local religious values can bring peace to a place as an example of how that guy's wars were caused by religion?
I think one aspect where Cameron is misfortunate about this whole incident is his name...
Cameron/Coulson - the closeness of the names both 7 letters and starting with C, ending "on" could definitely feed into the subconscious when reading about the stories.
It was also unfortunate that only some issues were resolved, while the jury continued deliberations.
If Cameron did not then apologise, he would be criticised for not apologising.
If he did, then he is criticised for speaking too soon.
Socrates, Sean F. Thank you. Saved me the trouble.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
That makes the point rather nicely. If religion had nothing to do with the nations persecuting the war, why are the dead of the Christian nations buried in fields marked with the religious symbol of the cross, with no regard to the individual soldiers belief, or otherwise? Religion and war, best buddies,
All marked with religious symbolism. As if burying your dead according to superstition will wipe away the guilt of sending them to die. Were those graves originally marked with the soldiers chosen faith? Or were they originally like the unknown soldiers, Marked with the host nations chosen superstition?
As was said, both sides in WW1 thought God was on their side to say religion had no part in WW1 is simplistic and factually incorrect.
You're like a shoal of fish darting about with an unrelated argument every time the truth shark arrives. Your point on graves was that all people from Christian nations were marked in Christian graves. When I demonstrated that was wrong, you don't accept it, but come up with a completely random irreligious argument. If the USA and France fought wars in the name of their chosen religions, why did they happily mark the graves of patriots with alternative religious values, while upholding religious liberty at home? I've never said religion had no part in WW1. I've just said it wasn't a cause of it. Yes, both sides thought they had God on their side. They also thought they had right on their side. That doesn't mean morality caused the war.
This is true, but of course it was, in the case of the Mongol Empire, that the massive mixture of religions defined much of the internal politics and influenced expansion, to the point of conversion, eventually, to Islam. With regard to Napoleonic, his rise grew out of the religious anarchy of the French Revolution and the extremely odd religious superstitions and sects that wrecked the country, which was itself a direct result of the God-inspired autocracy of Louis.
This is so tenuous and idiotic that there's almost no point replying to you. The mixture of religious belief had absolutely zero part to play in Genghis Khan attacking the rest of the world - the guy was religiously tolerant and wanted to learn from philosophers of all religions. Napoleon's rise came about due to the purges (the vast majority non-religious) of the Terror. And anyway, the guy's rise to power isn't the reason for his wars abroad. Seriously, name one historian who believes religion was a major cause of the Napoleonic Wars. You can't, because its a Tapestry-style crackpot theory.
A quote from Napoleon It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon.
Yep, religion had no part in Napoleons empire building. He just used whatever belief was convenient to subdue the masses.
Mongol Empire - I'm on thin ice here, admittedly, although the empires later conversion to Islam does rather imply a religious overture to things in its later incarnation.
You're using a quote saying that an irreligious leader espousing local religious values can bring peace to a place as an example of how that guy's wars were caused by religion?
Errrr, no I'm using the quote to show how Napoleon used religion to subdue nations and build empire. The fact his faith was as flakey as a leper is hardly relevant, he used religion to build an empire, that's the point.
I'm going to rephrase my original premise, having been convinced that SOME war is not based on religion or faith in the supernatural.
Religion is the cause of, or reason for, many wars, and is a contributing factor in the mindset of the persecuting nations or factions in many others. Sometimes, man is just a dick for secular reasons. Happy?
I'm going to rephrase my original premise, having been convinced that SOME war is not based on religion or faith in the supernatural.
Religion is the cause of, or reason for, many wars, and is a contributing factor in the mindset of the persecuting nations or factions in many others. Sometimes, man is just a dick for secular reasons. Happy?
Socrates, Sean F. Thank you. Saved me the trouble.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
That makes the point rather nicely. If religion had nothing to do with the nations persecuting the war, why are the dead of the Christian nations buried in fields marked with the religious symbol of the cross, with no regard to the individual soldiers belief, or otherwise? Religion and war, best buddies,
All marked with religious symbolism. As if burying your dead according to superstition will wipe away the guilt of sending them to die. Were those graves originally marked with the soldiers chosen faith? Or were they originally like the unknown soldiers, Marked with the host nations chosen superstition?
As was said, both sides in WW1 thought God was on their side to say religion had no part in WW1 is simplistic and factually incorrect.
What on earth was Mr Justice Sanders going on about?
[The PM] has now told the public and therefore the jury that he was given assurances by Mr. Coulson before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before and it is a matter which is capable of affecting Mr. Coulson’s credibility in their eyes. Mr. Coulson’s credibility is a matter which is in issue on the final two charges that the jury have to consider.
When he says 'the jury were not aware of that before', I presume he can't mean that the assurances were untrue, since it was that very same jury which had just unanimously reached a verdict that they were untrue. So he must mean that the jury didn't know Coulson had given assurances to the PM.
Well, if they didn't know that, then clearly they haven't been reading the newspapers or watching any news programmes for the last three years. I suppose that is possible, but, if so, why have they suddenly started to do so overnight?
In any case, the assurances that Coulson gave the PM were the same as the statements he made in the court (and, for that matter, in the Select Committee hearings and elsewhere, repeatedly). The jury has already decided that his testimony in court in this matter was untrue, so it's impossible to see how their view of Coulson's credibility could have been altered by the fact that he said the same to the PM, even if that was new information to them.
Socrates, Sean F. Thank you. Saved me the trouble.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
That makes the point rather nicely. If religion had nothing to do with the nations persecuting the war, why are the dead of the Christian nations buried in fields marked with the religious symbol of the cross, with no regard to the individual soldiers belief, or otherwise? Religion and war, best buddies,
All marked with religious symbolism. As if burying your dead according to superstition will wipe away the guilt of sending them to die. Were those graves originally marked with the soldiers chosen faith? Or were they originally like the unknown soldiers, Marked with the host nations chosen superstition?
As was said, both sides in WW1 thought God was on their side to say religion had no part in WW1 is simplistic and factually incorrect.
It had no part in bringing about the war, though.
Conceded, as per my revised premise a few posts below. Now, God willing. I am leaving this place for another place, and there shall I remain for a period, only to return and engage in further exciting debate later this evening. Importantly, Ed truly sucks, and Cameron is one lucky/slippery leader.
What on earth was Mr Justice Sanders going on about?
[The PM] has now told the public and therefore the jury that he was given assurances by Mr. Coulson before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before and it is a matter which is capable of affecting Mr. Coulson’s credibility in their eyes. Mr. Coulson’s credibility is a matter which is in issue on the final two charges that the jury have to consider.
When he says 'the jury were not aware of that before', I presume he can't mean that the assurances were untrue, since it was that very same jury which had just unanimously reached a verdict that they were untrue. So he must mean that the jury didn't know Coulson had given assurances to the PM.
Well, if they didn't know that, then clearly they haven't been reading the newspapers or watching any news programmes for the last three years. I suppose that is possible, but, if so, why have they suddenly started to do so overnight?
In any case, the assurances that Coulson gave the PM were the same as the statements he made in the court (and, for that matter, in the Select Committee hearings and elsewhere, repeatedly). The jury has already decided that his testimony in court in this matter was untrue, so it's impossible to see how their view of Coulson's credibility could have been altered by the fact that he said the same to the PM, even if that was new information to them.
All I can think is that sitting through all this tedium and nonsense for months and months has made Judge Sanders crazy!
Kevin Maguire + The Political Editor of New Statesman = (estimate readers)
BBC headline = (estimate readers, viewers, and listeners)
calculate net effect of both.
You are right to highlight how the BBC is towing the Guardian's preferred spin. I've just been out and had Radio 5 on and in between the tennis, the news headlines said Cameron faced "tough" questions from Ed Miliband at PMQs, he was "forced to apologise" again.
Note the decision to use "tough" and "forced" in their headlines.
Then they played Cammo's apology straight in to Ed's first question which got in the crim in Downing street 'headliner' - so it sounded like Cammo was apologising to Ed and then left Ed's Q unanswered as they didn't play Cammo's answer to the first question.
John Pienaar then came on and said as you've just heard Cameron's answer was that Leveson Enquiry cleared him, EXCEPT we didn't, the only piece from Cammo was the apology to the Tory softball first Q
Then they discussed how the judge was angry with Cameron and "other politicians" (no mention of Ed's crim in downing st piece) and focussed solely on Cameron's apology being iffy.
All of thid is true reporting BUT it was great editing and sounded spot on for Ed....
Mmm, but not IMO because of BBC bias, just that "a criminal in Downing Street" is much more media-friendly than "The Leveson report said it was all right". That's the point I was making earlier and the reason why IMO Miliband will be satisfied with today's exchange if it's reported on TV as I'd expect. Cameron has had other sessions where I thought Miliband won technically but the Cameron parts were more media-friendly.
Ultimately, though, I don't think it'll do more than knock a few points off Cameron's leader ratings.
Since 2010, Obama's US economy has grown by 8%, and unemployment has fallen by 3.6 points. In the same time period, Cameron's UK economy has grown by 6% and unemployment has fallen by 1.5 points. But you know, one quarter of very bad weather in the US was bad, so that must mean that Obama is a disaster, while Cameron has overseen an economic miracle.
US banking system much smaller than UK's as %. Less exposed to Euro crisis. Unemployment figures very flattered by drop in participation rate. US first in first out. US GDP growth more driven by immigration than even UK.
Since 2010, Obama's US economy has grown by 8%, and unemployment has fallen by 3.6 points. In the same time period, Cameron's UK economy has grown by 6% and unemployment has fallen by 1.5 points. But you know, one quarter of very bad weather in the US was bad, so that must mean that Obama is a disaster, while Cameron has overseen an economic miracle.
US banking system much smaller than UK's as %. Less exposed to Euro crisis. Unemployment figures very flattered by drop in participation rate. US first in first out. US GDP growth more driven by immigration than even UK.
Todays 3rd revision of US GDP shows a decline of 2.9% in the first quarter.
Comments
WW2, less so
Mongol conquests, yes!
Manchu, not sure, need to look into the background of it a little more
Russian Civil war, I'll give you that one, although it was a war ON religion, and the excesses of religious leadership and autocracy.
Napoleonic War - errrrr, yes, self-evidently.
Can you even point to one serious historian that points to religion as a major cause of WWI or the Napoleonic Wars?
The Mail reports defence barristers can claim back sums from the government if their clients are acquitted, and the sums NI spent on legal teams was gargantuan.
The CPS must be in a state of shock.
With regard to Napoleonic, his rise grew out of the religious anarchy of the French Revolution and the extremely odd religious superstitions and sects that wrecked the country, which was itself a direct result of the God-inspired autocracy of Louis.
I seem to recall both sides in WWI being absolutely convinced that God was on their side.
Gilead really does seem to be caning it.
But, for a war to be a religious war, I think religion has to be the main motive for it. That means that the war is fought to spread one's own creed/eliminate heresy/punish another State for insults to the gods etc. There have been wars that have been motivated by such grounds, but most have other motives.
http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/abbott-slammed-after-deaths-scuttle-phiii-kidney-disease-program/2012-10-18
Buying companies just because they are cheap isn't a good approach
If religion had nothing to do with the nations persecuting the war, why are the dead of the Christian nations buried in fields marked with the religious symbol of the cross, with no regard to the individual soldiers belief, or otherwise?
Religion and war, best buddies,
By the way, I have a new theory. Breakfasts cause wars. Can you name a war where the soldiers didn't regularly eat breakfast throughout?
http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/thumbnailfull/france-muslim-graves-2009-10-22-13-17-11.jpg
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/jewish-wwi-headstone-lijssenhoek-cemetery-flanders-fields-great-war-solider-near-poperinge-belgium-36183466.jpg
As we're on religion (not sure if that's due to the atheist consigned to a mental hospital in Nigeria or not), a related aside: I chose Thaddeus as my pen name partly because he's my favourite disciple.
Never whined about being equal to Simon Peter, like James and John did, never denied Jesus three times like Peter did, never had Jesus nailed to a large piece of wood like Judas did.
Thaddeus just got on with some good, honest, discipling.
It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon.
Yep, religion had no part in Napoleons empire building. He just used whatever belief was convenient to subdue the masses.
Mongol Empire - I'm on thin ice here, admittedly, although the empires later conversion to Islam does rather imply a religious overture to things in its later incarnation.
Note the decision to use "tough" and "forced" in their headlines.
Then they played Cammo's apology straight in to Ed's first question which got in the crim in Downing street 'headliner' - so it sounded like Cammo was apologising to Ed and then left Ed's Q unanswered as they didn't play Cammo's answer to the first question.
John Pienaar then came on and said as you've just heard Cameron's answer was that Leveson Enquiry cleared him, EXCEPT we didn't, the only piece from Cammo was the apology to the Tory softball first Q
Then they discussed how the judge was angry with Cameron and "other politicians" (no mention of Ed's crim in downing st piece) and focussed solely on Cameron's apology being iffy.
All of thid is true reporting BUT it was great editing and sounded spot on for Ed....
Cameron/Coulson - the closeness of the names both 7 letters and starting with C, ending "on" could definitely feed into the subconscious when reading about the stories.
As was said, both sides in WW1 thought God was on their side to say religion had no part in WW1 is simplistic and factually incorrect.
If Cameron did not then apologise, he would be criticised for not apologising.
If he did, then he is criticised for speaking too soon.
Sometimes you just cannot win.
I'd be tempted to pile on UKIP if she got the gig, but I guess the Ladbrokes 5/1 might not still be there if she did.
As it happens, I think Cameron's immediate apology was probably worse than the alternative but he would have been criticised either way.
I'm using the quote to show how Napoleon used religion to subdue nations and build empire. The fact his faith was as flakey as a leper is hardly relevant, he used religion to build an empire, that's the point.
I'm going to rephrase my original premise, having been convinced that SOME war is not based on religion or faith in the supernatural.
Religion is the cause of, or reason for, many wars, and is a contributing factor in the mindset of the persecuting nations or factions in many others. Sometimes, man is just a dick for secular reasons.
Happy?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28014069
Are labour stupid enough to choose her? I reckon its a 50-50 call.
[The PM] has now told the public and therefore the jury that he was given assurances by Mr. Coulson before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before and it is a matter which is capable of affecting Mr. Coulson’s credibility in their eyes. Mr. Coulson’s credibility is a matter which is in issue on the final two charges that the jury have to consider.
When he says 'the jury were not aware of that before', I presume he can't mean that the assurances were untrue, since it was that very same jury which had just unanimously reached a verdict that they were untrue. So he must mean that the jury didn't know Coulson had given assurances to the PM.
Well, if they didn't know that, then clearly they haven't been reading the newspapers or watching any news programmes for the last three years. I suppose that is possible, but, if so, why have they suddenly started to do so overnight?
In any case, the assurances that Coulson gave the PM were the same as the statements he made in the court (and, for that matter, in the Select Committee hearings and elsewhere, repeatedly). The jury has already decided that his testimony in court in this matter was untrue, so it's impossible to see how their view of Coulson's credibility could have been altered by the fact that he said the same to the PM, even if that was new information to them.
Now, God willing. I am leaving this place for another place, and there shall I remain for a period, only to return and engage in further exciting debate later this evening.
Importantly, Ed truly sucks, and Cameron is one lucky/slippery leader.
Why not spend the next two weeks on the Rio beach, watching pretty girls in thongs?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI-VbSfPhGo
You don't reward failure with pretty girls. Not in this game!
I'm only posting because team OGH are being lazy and not posting another thread-
I'm calling PMQs for Ed. Apparently this puts me at odds with the bubble people and I am happy with this as it proves I am a real person.
The one true religion...
Can't say I blame him...
I cant work out if Coulson was guilty how was Rebekah Brookes cleared?
Secondly Coulson is likely to get 6-12 months I would think.
This case has cost £35 million plus all the millions on police time, to send someone to jail for 6 months. Good value?
Ultimately, though, I don't think it'll do more than knock a few points off Cameron's leader ratings.
Less exposed to Euro crisis.
Unemployment figures very flattered by drop in participation rate.
US first in first out.
US GDP growth more driven by immigration than even UK.