politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With just four days to the big day Marf returns to give her

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With just four days to the big day Marf returns to give her take

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Brilliant Marf.

DecrepitJohnL

The use of "we" might wind up the Scots contributors, I fear.

TheWatcher

Malcolmg and the Cybernats should be on that list!

Carnyx

On a pedantic point, battered Mars Bars are the Scottish equivalent of Chow Mein - done for the English tourists.

Mind you, I remember the reaction of an Italian colleague to discovering that his pizza had been battered and deep-fried ...

HYUFD

On Sweden looks from early results like the populist Swedish Democrats the biggest winners. Could that have a small impact on Scotland, if they say they want to be more like the Nordic countries, looks like they will not be able to escape the likes of UKIP after all!

OldKingCole

Equally pedantically I quite like bagpipes. From a distance.

Toms

You're on song there Marf. However, I'm told that deep fried Mars bars are irresistible. Must try one, gluten free. DIY that's quite feasible.

HYUFD

I see one Sweden Democrat has worn a kilt to support Scottish independence http://www.thelocal.se/20140914/the-locals-live-blog-sweden-elections-stockholm

Luckyguy1983

I live in Scotland, and if I leave, I'll have nice thoughts/fond memories toward ALL those things. Scotland is great! A wonderful, beautiful country, with fantastic people. Scottish people (and English people) need to realise we're not each other's enemies!

However, I love Marf's drawing style -welcome back.

AndyJS

Welcome back Marf.

Hugh

Sorry but that cartoon is pathetic.

Luckyguy1983

Oh, and I'm fine with battered mars bars -I've had one once; it tasted exactly like a 'mars bar fritter' would be expected to taste -not bad, but not an amazing sensation either; I've never been tempted to repeat it.

kle4

@ Charles - Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.

There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.

There must be a way to categorize, from those who believe in the teachings of Christ, to those who believe in his divinity, to those who believe in X or Y, rather than completely arbitrary definitions like 'At this point from xxx AD, anyone before or after is not a christian if they believe X, even if all their other beliefs match up'

MikeK

Long time no larf, Marf. Where did you disappear to, Marf?

MattW

Loving the Extra Slimey Salmond.

Ninoinoz

FPT

taffys said:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/14/ukip-politicising-child-sex-abuse-claim-blame-labour

More on that H&M byelection, this time from the UKIP candidate himself.

It is going to get very, very, very nasty.

Two absolutely classic paragraphs in that piece:

A BBC Countryfile presenter who won an ageism claim against the broadcaster, Miriam O'Reilly, will head a list of Labour candidates at a constituency hustings on Monday night.

BBC? Couldn't they find a RC priest?

There is understood to be unrest among Labour activists at the way local candidates have been overlooked in favour of O'Reilly. Richard Scorer, a solicitor who represents some of the Rochdale abuse victims, has been kept off the final list.

Yep, Labour are really serious about cleaning up their act.

Life_ina_market_town

FPT

Charles said:

Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

And just who has the authority to declare someone a heretic, and therefore not a Christian? The pope of Rome, some apostate Anglican archbishop or even the state? It is certainly arguable, on the basis of tradition, that your own Anglican sect is nothing more than a heretical bunch of schismatics intent on corrupting the one true apostolic Catholic faith. Indeed, the late Runcie, like Stephen Gardiner before him, devoted much of his time in office to healing the so-called Anglo-Roman schism.

Stuart_Dickson

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

Socrates

Charles speaking a lot of crap about heresy and Christianity on the previous thread. Just because you had a Roman Emperor on your side doesn't make your side right.

Luckyguy1983

kle4 said:

@ Charles - Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.

There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.

There's the Westminster Catechism:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-shorter-cat.html

'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.

Stuart_Dickson

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

AllyM

Very good and amusing sketch.

Though I hope it doesn't come to that.

HurstLlama

Life_ina_market_town said:

FPT

Charles said:

Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

And just who has the authority to declare someone a heretic, and therefore not a Christian? The pope of Rome, some apostate Anglican archbishop or even the state? It is certainly arguable, on the basis of tradition, that your own Anglican sect is nothing more than a heretical bunch of schismatics intent on corrupting the one true apostolic Catholic faith. Indeed, the late Runcie, like Stephen Gardiner before him, devoted much of his time in office to healing the so-called Anglo-Roman schism.

Indeed, but then if you look at the state of the CofE today you would have to wonder if Runcie and Gardiner didn't just waste their time.

Scrapheap_as_was

Spurs beat QPR 4-0 = v poor opponents, some go overboard and say Spurs are outsiders for title, most snigger at that.

Man U beat QPR 4-0 = Louis Van Gaalacticos, the manager saying they want to win the title etc...

I say both will miss the top 4 but the battle not to be 5th will be good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29200127

kle4

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

@ Charles - Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.

There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.

There's the Westminster Catechism:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-shorter-cat.html

'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.

I have absolutely no idea if modern or ancient Christian denominations have moved away from that. I've not been trying to prove what the underlying thread that ties together all of Christianity, or 'real' Christians, might be, only that people have and have had a lot of very different ideas about what that thread should be limited to, as even a non-christian is able to say without controversy. That's far easier than being definitive on at what point someone stops being a real Christian or not. I always stick to the easier tasks.

Christians of whatever denomination are of course free to determine for themselves whether an alternate denomination still fits without the bounds of Christianity, even though the see them as still wrong on the particulars. It's just that consensus is hard to achieve - practically unanimous in some areas, Arianism being one I would guess, but not so much others.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Welcome back Marf

Luckyguy1983

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

@ Charles - Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.

There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.

There's the Westminster Catechism:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-shorter-cat.html

'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.

I have absolutely no idea if modern or ancient Christian denominations have moved away from that. I've not been trying to prove what the underlying thread that ties together all of Christianity, or 'real' Christians might be, only that people have and have had a lot of very different ideas about what that thread should be limited to. That's far easier than being definitive on at what point someone stops being a real Christian or not. I always stick to the easier tasks.

I mention it because my understanding is it's just been quite constant. And when you radically depart from that, for example by adding your own Holy Book (Mormons), you therefore depart from being a Christian in its traditionally understood sense.

Stuart_Dickson

SVT (= BBC) first full prognosis will be published in 6 minutes.

HYUFD

SD So it looks like the Sweden Democrats will hold the balance of power, the march of populist eurosceptics across the EU continues

JonnyJimmy

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

SimonStClare

Brill cartoon - and welcome back Marf ; )

MikeK

Sky News ‏@SkyNews 6h
David Cameron vows to hunt down the 'monsters' who beheaded British aid worker David Haines http://news.sky.com/story/1335672/pm-we-will-hunt-down-david-haines-killers … pic.twitter.com/0pK4ixdIw1

Samara Stoker ‏@MORGANA_0666 30m
@SkyNews Yeah? & Jesus just walked into my kitchen. "No Balls" Cameron. My Gran could do a better job & she's been dead for 22yrs.

Sean_F

A heretic can be very devout.

I think the sine qua non for being a Christian is theism. That would rule out some Anglicans, some US Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Unitarians, and all British Humanists.

Howard

I spent a few moments watching (yet) another debate on BBC2 Scotland. The audience is divided into two completely separate groups, like a football game. And they are treating it like a football game. Every time their side thinks they got a "goal" then there is extreme applause and cheering.

Its a bit disturbing, because its so far from being about discussion. Its very aggressive, so much so I couldn't watch any longer.

kle4

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

@ Charles - Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.

There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.

There's the Westminster Catechism:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-shorter-cat.html

'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.

I have absolutely no idea if modern or ancient Christian denominations have moved away from that. I've not been trying to prove what the underlying thread that ties together all of Christianity, or 'real' Christians might be, only that people have and have had a lot of very different ideas about what that thread should be limited to. That's far easier than being definitive on at what point someone stops being a real Christian or not. I always stick to the easier tasks.

I mention it because my understanding is it's just been quite constant. And when you radically depart from that, for example by adding your own Holy Book (Mormons), you therefore depart from being a Christian in its traditionally understood sense.

There may well be near total consensus among Christian denominations as to the 'un-christianity' of some beliefs and sects, and acceptability of others as, while wrong from their perspective, still not enough to be branded as 'un-christian' exactly. But while some parts have more consensus than others, the denominations will continue to determine on a case by case basis it seems.

No_Offence_Alan

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Toms

The possibility that a "yes" vote might spur some Scots to move south reminds me of an obscure, but relevant, episode in American history. In the 18th century, when things were hotting up, a number of loyalists moved across the border to Canada. They were called "Tories" by the (revolting) Americans to be.

foxinsoxuk

JonnyJimmy said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

The banner or the photo had the Sinn Fein logo?

JonnyJimmy

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

The banner or the photo had the Sinn Fein logo?

The banner

nigel4england

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Spurs beat QPR 4-0 = v poor opponents, some go overboard and say Spurs are outsiders for title, most snigger at that.

Man U beat QPR 4-0 = Louis Van Gaalacticos, the manager saying they want to win the title etc...

I say both will miss the top 4 but the battle not to be 5th will be good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29200127

I presume you are going for a top three of City, Chelsea and Arsenal?

Not sure how good Arsenal are, they have improved their strike force but still cannot defend, in fact none of the top teams are good defensively. I'm going to presume Mourinho will tighten Chelsea up at the expense of attacking football, same as he did last year, and Kompany is a one man defense.

The others are laughable at the back, even today QPR had two great chances to score despite being rubbish. Liverpool won't be top five, the CL will put paid to that, conversely with no European games whatsoever Utd must be favourites for a CL spot, I have them to finish third.

foxinsoxuk

JonnyJimmy said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

The banner or the photo had the Sinn Fein logo?

The banner

So it was a slander against the Orange Order?

Sean_F

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

The banner or the photo had the Sinn Fein logo?

The banner.

In addition, Orange Order banners always have the name and number of the Lodge, which were missing from this banner.

AndyJS

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

Sunil_Prasannan

Lovely cartoon, Marf! You have been missed!

BTW, for those wot missed it, this week's Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) - eight polls with fieldwork 8th to 12th Sep:

Lab 36.1% (+0.2)
Con 31.2% (-1.6)
UKIP 15.6% (+1.0)
LD 7.4% (+0.0)

(changes from last week's ELBOW in brackets)

changes from the very first ELBOW from 4 weeks ago (17th August 2014):

Lab -0.1%
Con -1.9%
UKIP +2.3%
LD -1.2%

AllyM

I've learnt a new phrase tonight;

'Dog Whistle Nationalism'.

Socrates

Sean_F said:

A heretic can be very devout.

I think the sine qua non for being a Christian is theism. That would rule out some Anglicans, some US Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Unitarians, and all British Humanists.

I would have thought followership of Jesus of Nazareth is more important than theism. Liberal Quakers are more Christian than Gandhi was.

JonnyJimmy

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

The banner or the photo had the Sinn Fein logo?

The banner

So it was a slander against the Orange Order?

It was a banner celebrating their affiliation with the KKK, and suggesting these were the friends of Better Together

Stuart_Dickson

HYUFD said:

SD So it looks like the Sweden Democrats will hold the balance of power, the march of populist eurosceptics across the EU continues

That has been very clear for many weeks now.

But what is sursprising everyone, including me, is the size of the SD vote, currently 13.9%. They only got 5.7% last time. They are going to cause havoc for the new PM.

Sunil_Prasannan

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Last week I saw they had Tunnock's Caramels in the vending machines at Coventry station, I couldn't resist eating one!

EDIT: that would be the Tunnock's, not a vending machine!

AndyJS

Something odd going on with the Swedish election.

The exit poll orginally put the Swedish Democrats on 10.5% but the projection now seems to be around 15% after some real votes counted.

Toms

Note to TSE or OGH or whoever: I can't get the link to Marf given above to work. I've tried it on Windows Explorer and Chrome to no avail.

Life_ina_market_town

Socrates said:

I would have thought followership of Jesus of Nazareth is more important than theism. Liberal Quakers are more Christian than Gandhi was.

This discussion is beginning to resemble the classic debate among committed Marxists about whether the Soviet Union was the perfect embodiment of Marxism, a "degenerate workers' state", or, in fact, "state capitalist".

Socrates

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

@ Charles - Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.

There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.

There's the Westminster Catechism:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-shorter-cat.html

'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.

The Westminster Catchecism was created in the 17th Century under Charles I and worded vaguely enough that it could cover both English Anglicans and Scottish Presbyterians. It's hardly an ancient specific definition of the Christian faith.

Sunil_Prasannan

AndyJS said:

Something odd going on with the Swedish election.

The exit poll orginally put the Swedish Democrats on 10.5% but the projection now seems to be around 15% after some real votes have been counted.

Ooops missed the Election Game for that one! (sorry, Double Carpet!)

HYUFD

SD SDP/Moderate Grand Coalition?

Stuart_Dickson

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

They sit together in the European Parliament, and are great chums according to many press reports.

Socrates

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

AndyJS

Today's Survation/MoS:

Lab 35% (-1)
Con 31% (+4)
UKIP 19% (-3)
LD 8% (+1)

foxinsoxuk

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

A heretic can be very devout.

I think the sine qua non for being a Christian is theism. That would rule out some Anglicans, some US Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Unitarians, and all British Humanists.

I would have thought followership of Jesus of Nazareth is more important than theism. Liberal Quakers are more Christian than Gandhi was.

Quakers are assosciate members of Churches together. The reason is not that they are not Christian, it is because they object to any statement of belief on the nature of God, in that all are restrictions on the unknowable.

Stuart_Dickson

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

HYUFD

Certainly it is the SD who are the real winners tonight it seems, though Stefan Lofven is likely to replace Reinfeldt as PM

Alanbrooke

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

The banner or the photo had the Sinn Fein logo?

The banner.

In addition, Orange Order banners always have the name and number of the Lodge, which were missing from this banner.

tbh I think the OO should write Salmond a letter of thanks. he billed their march as Kristallnacht and even the Guardian said it was a family day out. I suspect their membership will get a lift as a result.

Peter_the_Punter

Toms said:

Note to TSE or OGH or whoever: I can't get the link to Marf given above to work. I've tried it on Windows Explorer and Chrome to no avail.

@Toms

She did try to post a thank you for the comments but that has not appeared. Caught in Moderation, or is there a technical problem?


EDIT: Ok, it's through. Thanks.

Stuart_Dickson

HYUFD said:

Certainly it is the SD who are the real winners tonight it seems, though Stefan Lofven is likely to replace Reinfeldt as PM

Agreed. Agreed.

I almost feel sorry for Löfven. I am highly unusual in being a centre-right voter who actually quite likes the Social Democrat leader.

AndyJS

Looks like the centre-right parties plus the Swedish Democrats are going to get well over 50% of the vote.

marf_the_cartoonist

i've really missed PB! Glad to be back. Hope you are all well, and thank you for the kind comments. Been working on a graphic novel, now finished - and so hopefully will have more time now to do more cartoons. Been addicted to the news, as ever, though. That can never change ...

nigel4england

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Last week I saw they had Tunnock's Caramels in the vending machines at Coventry station, I couldn't resist eating one!

EDIT: that would be the Tunnock's, not a vending machine!

Those bloody things, I can't resist them!

The plain chocolate ones are best, particularly after they've been in the fridge for an hour or so, not that I'm obsessed or anything!

Wonder what they are like deep fried?

MikeK

APPARENTLY SO .. If the shoe fits ... They say @defiant_infidel @RedNationRising @holycrap37 @JudgeJeanine pic.twitter.com/iVrem1LSXm

— ritzy jewels (@ritzy_jewels) September 14, 2014

Socrates

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

Because the Tories nicked all their other allies and the EU has rules to screw them out of funding otherwise?

nigel4england

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Last week I saw they had Tunnock's Caramels in the vending machines at Coventry station, I couldn't resist eating one!

EDIT: that would be the Tunnock's, not a vending machine!

If they vote yes will we still be able to eat Scotch Eggs?

Stuart_Dickson

AndyJS said:

Looks like the centre-right parties plus the Swedish Democrats are going to get well over 50% of the vote.

Err... do not lump the SD in with The Alliance parties. Nobody in Sweden ever does!

The SD are actually extremely left-wing on many issues. For example, their main campaign focus was on maintaining the extremely generous welfare system.

AndyJS

Stuart_Dickson said:

AndyJS said:

Looks like the centre-right parties plus the Swedish Democrats are going to get well over 50% of the vote.

Err... do not lump the SD in with The Alliance parties. Nobody in Sweden ever does!

The SD are actually extremely left-wing on many issues. For example, their main campaign focus was on maintaining the extremely generous welfare system.

I wasn't lumping them in. The point is it isn't a clear victory for the centre-left.

kle4

nigel4england said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Last week I saw they had Tunnock's Caramels in the vending machines at Coventry station, I couldn't resist eating one!

EDIT: that would be the Tunnock's, not a vending machine!

If they vote yes will we still be able to eat Scotch Eggs?

For a higher price yes. And they will have to pay more for English...custard? What dishes have English in the name?

JonnyJimmy

Toms said:

Note to TSE or OGH or whoever: I can't get the link to Marf given above to work. I've tried it on Windows Explorer and Chrome to no avail.

The link is this page's address with Marf's email (marfcartoons@btinternet.com) at the end

Stuart_Dickson

Socrates said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

Because the Tories nicked all their other allies and the EU has rules to screw them out of funding otherwise?

I note that you answered my question with another question. So I assume that you are a bit perplexed too.

Alanbrooke

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

because the SNP are allied with Sinn Fein ?

MikeK

Trash Apparently ‏@a_Londoner 1h
UKIP MEP under police protection because she spoke out against @UKLabour’s protection of ppl linked to child abuse.
http://bit.ly/1oLygsK

foxinsoxuk

Alanbrooke said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

because the SNP are allied with Sinn Fein ?

Is that true? Are the SNP really in the same grouping as SF?

Stuart_Dickson

Alanbrooke said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

becasue the SNP are allied with Sinn Fein ?

Nope. Sinn Fein are in the same group as the Swedish Left Party (ie. Respect-ish). Whereas the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the English Greens sit in the same group as the Swedish Greens.

nigel4england

kle4 said:

nigel4england said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Last week I saw they had Tunnock's Caramels in the vending machines at Coventry station, I couldn't resist eating one!

EDIT: that would be the Tunnock's, not a vending machine!

If they vote yes will we still be able to eat Scotch Eggs?

For a higher price yes. And they will have to pay more for English...custard? What dishes have English in the name?

Eton Mess?

HYUFD

SD Indeed, will be interesting to see what Lofven does. The SD are anti immigration and anti EU, but economically willing to play the populist card, as UKIP have done with the 'bedroom tax'

TheScreamingEagles

Toms said:

Note to TSE or OGH or whoever: I can't get the link to Marf given above to work. I've tried it on Windows Explorer and Chrome to no avail.

I can't edit the link at the moment, but Marf's email is

marfcartoons@btinternet.com

Stuart_Dickson

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

because the SNP are allied with Sinn Fein ?

Is that true? Are the SNP really in the same grouping as SF?

No, it is not true.

Sinn Fein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_United_Left–Nordic_Green_Left

SNP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens–European_Free_Alliance

Neil

Socrates said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

Because the Tories nicked all their other allies and the EU has rules to screw them out of funding otherwise?

Ah, UKIP prioritising money over principles like all the other parties. How sad.

Sunil_Prasannan

marf_the_cartoonist said:

i've really missed PB! Glad to be back. Hope you are all well, and thank you for the kind comments. Been working on a graphic novel, now finished - and so hopefully will have more time now to do more cartoons. Been addicted to the news, as ever, though. That can never change ...

That's wonderful re. the graphic novel! Do you have a publication date?

MattW

kle4 said:

nigel4england said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Last week I saw they had Tunnock's Caramels in the vending machines at Coventry station, I couldn't resist eating one!

EDIT: that would be the Tunnock's, not a vending machine!

If they vote yes will we still be able to eat Scotch Eggs?

For a higher price yes. And they will have to pay more for English...custard? What dishes have English in the name?

Scotch Egg's were invented by Fortnum and Mason.

ie English. Just like Haggis, and - possibly - Bagpipes!

Carnyx

Alanbrooke said:

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

MikeK said:

Long time no larf, Marf.

... and we're still waiting.

If you need a laugh, have a look back to some fool earlier posting a picture of an "Orange Order" banner which he hadn't noticed had the Sinn Fein All Ireland logo at the top. That was a real joke, what an idiot!!!

The banner or the photo had the Sinn Fein logo?

The banner.

In addition, Orange Order banners always have the name and number of the Lodge, which were missing from this banner.

tbh I think the OO should write Salmond a letter of thanks. he billed their march as Kristallnacht and even the Guardian said it was a family day out. I suspect their membership will get a lift as a result.

Source for the Kristallnacht thing please? Doesn't come up on Google.

I was actually taken aback to find that the Sunday Times piece, in the most overtly Unionist newspaper of the three, was rather more dismissive of the OO than the Graun and the Sunday Herald.

nigel4england

MikeK said:

Trash Apparently ‏@a_Londoner 1h
UKIP MEP under police protection because she spoke out against @UKLabour’s protection of ppl linked to child abuse.
http://bit.ly/1oLygsK

She is 100% right, about time someone threw the book at Labour over this

AndyJS

MikeK said:

Trash Apparently ‏@a_Londoner 1h
UKIP MEP under police protection because she spoke out against @UKLabour’s protection of ppl linked to child abuse.
http://bit.ly/1oLygsK

More importantly, she's the candidate for Rotherham at the next general election.

Howard

As some people are saying on twitter the audience in this BBC debate on independence is now "Jerry Springer" like in the levels of screaming and clapping.

The whole audience is divided into two sides - separated from one another (perhaps appropriately).

They seem to think that the louder they clap and holler at any perceived "goal" the better it is for their side.

Actually I think its a turn off to have such hyped up people. I couldn't watch any more.

Alanbrooke

Stuart_Dickson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

because the SNP are allied with Sinn Fein ?

Is that true? Are the SNP really in the same grouping as SF?

No, it is not true.

Sinn Fein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_United_Left–Nordic_Green_Left

SNP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens–European_Free_Alliance

Hey it's a staight forward lie, but why should that upset you ?

Here's the OO organising their latest KKK lodge

http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2005/1643.html

nigel4england

MattW said:

kle4 said:

nigel4england said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

Last week I saw they had Tunnock's Caramels in the vending machines at Coventry station, I couldn't resist eating one!

EDIT: that would be the Tunnock's, not a vending machine!

If they vote yes will we still be able to eat Scotch Eggs?

For a higher price yes. And they will have to pay more for English...custard? What dishes have English in the name?

Scotch Egg's were invented by Fortnum and Mason.

ie English. Just like Haggis, and - possibly - Bagpipes!

And Rod Stewart, sadly.

Stuart_Dickson

HYUFD said:

SD Indeed, will be interesting to see what Lofven does. The SD are anti immigration and anti EU, but economically willing to play the populist card, as UKIP have done with the 'bedroom tax'

Löfven is from the right of his party. He wants to do a deal with the two liberal parties (Centre + Peoples' Party), but they point blank refuse. So he will have to reply on the communists, the greens and the Swedish Kippers. A recipe for absolute chaos.

The Kippers will support Löfven on all kinds of welfare and tax issues, which will only succeed in infuriating Social Democrats and their voters.

kle4

Howard said:

As some people are saying on twitter the audience in this BBC debate on independence is now "Jerry Springer" like in the levels of screaming and clapping.

The whole audience is divided into two sides - separated from one another (perhaps appropriately).

They seem to think that the louder they clap and holler at any perceived "goal" the better it is for their side.

Actually I think its a turn off to have such hyped up people. I couldn't watch any more.

Agreed. Perhaps that rule in the debates in 2010 for their to be no applause was a good thing, strange as it sounds (and making it pretty pointless to have an audience there)

Charles

Toms said:

You're on song there Marf. However, I'm told that deep fried Mars bars are irresistible. Must try one, gluten free. DIY that's quite feasible.

Melted Tolberone poured over vanilla ice cream is far tastier and more decadent

Luckyguy1983

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

@ Charles - Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true

They were Christians up until the point a rival doctrine declared them not to be so. Just because someone claims someone else is not something does not make it true either, there is no single authority on what makes someone a christian, and if modern christianity has evolved considerably from its earliest beginnings, when it appears there was considerable disagreement on some fundamental questions, what makes one a heretic today might not have then and might not in the future, hence all the many 'back to the basics' movements through history which reject the churches of their time for what they think is the intended 'pure' and 'true' faith which has been lost.

There are many things about some modern christian denominations which would have not been acceptable hundreds or thousands of years ago. That's why someone's self identification of christianity makes more sense to me than the reverse (they may well not be 'mainstream' however), because the cut off point of what makes a true christian, however divergent from one denomination to another, can always be shifted, from nicenean to chalcedonian and so on and so on.

There's the Westminster Catechism:

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-shorter-cat.html

'God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.'

Can you give any examples of substance where modern Christian denominations have moved away from this? In belief, not method of demonstrating or exercising that belief.

The Westminster Catchecism was created in the 17th Century under Charles I and worded vaguely enough that it could cover both English Anglicans and Scottish Presbyterians. It's hardly an ancient specific definition of the Christian faith.

Yes, but still not vague enough to include Mormonism.

Beverley_C

No_Offence_Alan said:

I have lived in Scotland since 1988.
I like - porridge, whisky, the kilt, plain bread, haggis, cranachan
I dislike - bagpipes, Irn Bru

I never got over "Salt'n'sauce" instead of "salt'n'vinegar" in chippys in Edinburgh. Initially I had to have three or four goes at decoding "salltoonsooz?".

TheScreamingEagles

Alanbrooke said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

because the SNP are allied with Sinn Fein ?

Is that true? Are the SNP really in the same grouping as SF?

No, it is not true.

Sinn Fein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_United_Left–Nordic_Green_Left

SNP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens–European_Free_Alliance

Hey it's a staight forward lie, but why should that upset you ?

Here's the OO organising their latest KKK lodge

http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2005/1643.html

I've always wanted to join the KKK, only to find out what washing powder they use to get their outfits so brilliantly white and clean.

MikeK

Telegraph News ‏@TelegraphNews 8m
Britain to curb Muslim Brotherhood operations in London http://tgr.ph/1qW7PWj

So someone in Britain is at last waking up to the threat from the so called more moderate muslims. Lets see if this not another round of just talk, while the country is gently subverted from within.

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Alanbrooke said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

Stuart_Dickson said:

SWEDEN: with 494 out of 5837 districts counted:

RED-GREENS
Left 5,1
Social Democrats 31.8
Greens 5.7
(Feminist Initiative 2.4 UNDER 4% threshold)

CENTRE-RIGHT (PM Fredrik Reinfeldt)
Centre 8.6
Peoples' Party 4.4
Christian Democrats 5,0
Moderates 20.6

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP) 15.5

Others 0.9

SWEDEN DEMOCRATS (UKIP)?

The Swedish Democrats were formed by Nazis weren't they? Hardly UKIP.

So why are UKIP their new best chums?

because the SNP are allied with Sinn Fein ?

Is that true? Are the SNP really in the same grouping as SF?

No, it is not true.

Sinn Fein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_United_Left–Nordic_Green_Left

SNP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens–European_Free_Alliance

Hey it's a staight forward lie, but why should that upset you ?

Here's the OO organising their latest KKK lodge

http://news.ulster.ac.uk/releases/2005/1643.html

I've always wanted to join the KKK, only to find out what washing powder they use to get their outfits to brilliantly white and clean.

best ask Stuart he's the man with the inside track.