OT, but Breitbart.com has to one of the worst political sites. It makes Guido look amazing, and the DM comments' section look moderate. Full of misogynists and racists.
I actually quite enjoy commenting below the line at Breitbart. And above the line it's the second morning website I read to start the day off. I don't comment at Guido these days. It's lost the sharp humour and has just got shouty.
Caption: "Hillary reminds me of the character in 'House of Cards,' Claire Underwood, in that she seems like a terrible person on the inside," John Weber said.
Claire Underwood left Frank just before the NH primary, who knows what she will do in Season 4
Been traveling a lot, and rationing my catch up watching. No to binge watching!
Binge watch Madam Secretary, you'll enjoy that.
About a former CIA operative who becomes Secretary of State.
I have watched it. Was very skeptical at first, but it grew on me. That and watching Tea Leoni ... I'll never forget her role in Flirting with Disaster (the scene in black lingerie to be precise)
Yeah, Tea Leoni does float my boat.
Is why I hate David Duchovny
Looks very similar to my wife
Davis Duchovny looks similar to your wife? i knew this upper class inbreeding would end in disaster one day....
At some point though racial, national and reactionary politics will be overtaken by history. You cannot stop it.
I'm quite impatient though. I'd love too see what Europe looks like with 100 million or so Africans and Asians mixing it with us. It's going to happen of course. I'm one of those who just wants to see what it'll be like on the other side without going through the blood, sweat and tears of trying to stop it.
Digressing from the underlying immigration debate if I may.
You'll be familiar with the concept of Genetic Eve as a common ancestor several 10000s years ago. Actually, she is only identified through maternal lines, your mother, your mother's mother, 1 single person only in each generation until the same woman appears on everybody's ancestry, the female lineages of all the other women alive in her time having been broken. There is also a Genetic Adam traced through paternal lines in the same way, who probably lived at a different time and in a different place from Eve.
It is once you get to considering both male and female lines that things get really interesting, because as you go to 2 / 4 / 8 doubling with each generation (actually less than doubling, as your distant cousins start marrying each other) we each have vast numbers of ancestors. As best can be told, the most recent common ancestor of all humanity lived only around 2000 years ago! For that to be so, every Latin American, every Aborigine, every African, every Arab Muslim has had at least one immigrant ancestor since colonisation, probably European, and you can reasonably speculate that the last common ancestor of all humanity resided and travelled in the Roman Empire.
Successful large-scale political, industrial and religious organisation, the conquests and mass migrations have been the seed pods on which certain nations and people have dominated the world. We know this is true politically, it also holds genetically. So, mixing is unavoidable, the question is simply one of extent and timescale - the shorter the timescale of mixing, the more homogeneous we will become and the less we will be able to discern different genetic tribes like the ones identified within the UK a few months ago.
Whatever we do about any particular wave of immigration, the trend of global travel is inescapably that more people will die in countries other than where they were born, and the net flow of migration will never, ever be from rich to poor. You may demand better control over the tide, but a world, a UK of no immigration at all just isn't in any sense a realistic or possible end point.
Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.
Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.
If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
A deliciously ironic post, given her surname.
Somehow one doubts that she'd be happy even if every man in the country gifted her their severed penis on a plate, as she seems to yearn for.
Her birth name was Bailye, but she changed it to Proudman 2 years ago...
Bloody daft to put your photo on LinkedIn.
The solicitor may have been crass but there are better ways of fending off unwanted advances than the way she chose. Gentle mockery, for instance. Or even better: simply ignoring him.
It's thoroughly obnoxious.
I thought her response was po-faced and pompous, but if she had kept it private that would have been fine.
To post it publicly is unacceptable
Agreed. She gives professional women and feminists a bad name.
She's an ignorant idiot as well. I suffered much worse sexism when starting out in my career. One learns to deal with it. Fending off an unwanted and rather cack-handed compliment is a very minor issue. She'll self-combust if she ever encountered real sexist / mysogynist behaviour.
Been traveling a lot, and rationing my catch up watching. No to binge watching!
Binge watch Madam Secretary, you'll enjoy that.
About a former CIA operative who becomes Secretary of State.
I have watched it. Was very skeptical at first, but it grew on me. That and watching Tea Leoni ... I'll never forget her role in Flirting with Disaster (the scene in black lingerie to be precise)
Yeah, Tea Leoni does float my boat.
Is why I hate David Duchovny
Looks very similar to my wife
Davis Duchovny looks similar to your wife? i knew this upper class inbreeding would end in disaster one day....
If Burnham's campaign didn't cash the cheque, it sounds like this is a non-story.
I think it's this bit that will cause Burnham problems
Last night Andy Burnham’s team dismissed Rasool as a “fantasist”. A spokesman said: “Faiz Ul Rasool has had no role, formal or informal, within the Burnham campaign.”
But the official Andy4Leader Twitter feed last week lauded his fundraising efforts. It posted a picture of Rasool at a rally in Birmingham and with the caption: “Campaign stars!”
There are two types of people in this country - those that pay their tax and follow the rules, and those that do well for themselves and their families.
A scandal in the administration is a scandal in the administration, and questions will be asked if the doctoring of reports happened at the State Department too, or if others outside of the Pentagon ordered those fake reports to be issued, like someone from the White House. Karl Rove's head rolled over the mess of the Iraq reports and the Plame affair. Alastair Campbell's head also rolled due to the dodgy Iraq dossier. There is strong precedent to think that this scandal will probably have a large impact.
Someone asked them to alter their intelligence reports or counterfeited them to suit their own political needs and narrative, who where they? We might find out, but a scandal of that size in an election year in America might be the final straw for Hillary.
For me, the question to State should be "Were there standing instructions to remove classification markings from emails forwarded to Clinton and/or her close aides?" State is doing its utmost to protect her at the moment - not surprising given the (unfathomable to me) hagiolatry of the Department during her tenure.
I was told yesterday by an Air Force colonel with a clearance that whether the emails were marked as classified or not was irrelevant. It's the information content that is the point. As he put it "It's not classified because it's marked: it's marked because it's classified."
I read an article today in support of Hillary which made the point that the material (sic) 'is' classified after the fact, citing the current exercise to review and classify Hillary's emails.
Well, unless US practice is very different from British (which I know is not the case), the material is classified by the originator at the time of creation, not post facto. Thus if information deemed classified by NSA or NGA is found without classification markings on it, it strongly implies that someone, somewhere along the communication chain has removed the classification markings.
And, as you stated, if something that should be classified but has no markings comes to your attention, then you have the obligation to re-classify it.
Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.
Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.
If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
A deliciously ironic post, given her surname.
Somehow one doubts that she'd be happy even if every man in the country gifted her their severed penis on a plate, as she seems to yearn for.
Mens genitals are regularly sliced up, not quite as badly as FGM but Male Genital Mutilation has is reasonably close in its limitations on sexual enjoyment and function.
She's still not as bad as the Carolinian student whose paper I posted last night. Here again, in all it's whingy victimhood virtuosity:
[from yesterday's thread] "Oh my word. The article referred to in this article is priceless. But even better are the comments. I particularly like the tips on how to be taken seriously given by Mark Lang."
The irony is that she almost certainly has intact genitalia, while it is very likely that all the men she claims are failing to respect her have mutilated genitals.
Edinburgh was quite a significant indicator in 2012
The Liberals lost 14 out of 17 seats, going to 6 Labour, 6 SNP, 3 Green (Tories and Labour lost one gained one).
The Liberals disgraceful behaviour over the worthless trams really hit them hard but somehow SLAB avoided the same outcome. Which is ironic because AIUI the nasty piece of trash who destroyed much of Scottish Transport under Labour was Craig Begg who is a Labour HighHeidYin currently being used by Labour in London.
Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.
Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.
If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
A deliciously ironic post, given her surname.
Somehow one doubts that she'd be happy even if every man in the country gifted her their severed penis on a plate, as she seems to yearn for.
Mens genitals are regularly sliced up, not quite as badly as FGM but Male Genital Mutilation has is reasonably close in its limitations on sexual enjoyment and function.
She's still not as bad as the Carolinian student whose paper I posted last night. Here again, in all it's whingy victimhood virtuosity:
[from yesterday's thread] "Oh my word. The article referred to in this article is priceless. But even better are the comments. I particularly like the tips on how to be taken seriously given by Mark Lang."
The irony is that she almost certainly has intact genitalia, while it is very likely that all the men she claims are failing to respect her have mutilated genitals.
There are some truly great comments in the comment section. Here's another I love:
"I'm afraid these poor souls are in for a lifetime of disappointment. I myself find it refreshing, that merely existing is a micro-aggression to this generation of self-absorbed pansies."
Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.
Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.
If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
A deliciously ironic post, given her surname.
Somehow one doubts that she'd be happy even if every man in the country gifted her their severed penis on a plate, as she seems to yearn for.
Her birth name was Bailye, but she changed it to Proudman 2 years ago...
Bloody daft to put your photo on LinkedIn.
The solicitor may have been crass but there are better ways of fending off unwanted advances than the way she chose. Gentle mockery, for instance. Or even better: simply ignoring him.
It's thoroughly obnoxious.
I thought her response was po-faced and pompous, but if she had kept it private that would have been fine.
To post it publicly is unacceptable
Agreed. She gives professional women and feminists a bad name.
She's an ignorant idiot as well. I suffered much worse sexism when starting out in my career. One learns to deal with it. Fending off an unwanted and rather cack-handed compliment is a very minor issue. She'll self-combust if she ever encountered real sexist / mysogynist behaviour.
I think people are missing the core issue. She has "Been building a media profile for the past few years".
That't not a lawyer or a feminist, that's an egotistical narcissist.
I've been thinking about what the Labour moderates / right-wing / Blairites will do if&when Corbyn becomes leader. There might be a split in the style of what happened in 1980/81, but (a) they won't go and join the Lib Dems - because the Lib Dems are still toxic after the Coalition, (b) they won't set up a new dead-end party like the SDP - because they know from history how useless that was. The only option left is (c) to go and join an already-existing-but-not-the-Lib-Dems party. How about the SDP? It still exists, and with a modern tinge of euroskepticism it will help to fend off the challenge from UKIP.
So the SDP might win the next by-election - just as they did when Foot was leader - except this time without Roy Jenkins.
Out of interest, the real fear from the Edinburgh byelection should be the Tories. They are slightly down but when you look at their performance in 2012, they really can't afford to lose even a few percent before they become irrelevant.
As things stand the 2017 Edinburgh vote will be a clear SNP win, with Labour and the Greens fighting it out for the coalition slot and the Liberals and Tories fighting it out to keep a couple of seats.
The Tories down to single figures in Edinburgh will be an interesting outcome and does not bode well for Carpet Bagger Ruth Davidson actually winning a seat. As it stands if any Tory in Edinburgh wins a Constituency (maybe through tactical voting) then Ruth could be an ex-Politician.
Out of interest, the real fear from the Edinburgh byelection should be the Tories. They are slightly down but when you look at their performance in 2012, they really can't afford to lose even a few percent before they become irrelevant.
As things stand the 2017 Edinburgh vote will be a clear SNP win, with Labour and the Greens fighting it out for the coalition slot and the Liberals and Tories fighting it out to keep a couple of seats.
The Tories down to single figures in Edinburgh will be an interesting outcome and does not bode well for Carpet Bagger Ruth Davidson actually winning a seat. As it stands if any Tory in Edinburgh wins a Constituency (maybe through tactical voting) then Ruth could be an ex-Politician.
Only down 0.3% (unless there is another result?). Not even a couple of percent. Still, you are right that every little helps!
Out of interest, the real fear from the Edinburgh byelection should be the Tories. They are slightly down but when you look at their performance in 2012, they really can't afford to lose even a few percent before they become irrelevant.
As things stand the 2017 Edinburgh vote will be a clear SNP win, with Labour and the Greens fighting it out for the coalition slot and the Liberals and Tories fighting it out to keep a couple of seats.
The Tories down to single figures in Edinburgh will be an interesting outcome and does not bode well for Carpet Bagger Ruth Davidson actually winning a seat. As it stands if any Tory in Edinburgh wins a Constituency (maybe through tactical voting) then Ruth could be an ex-Politician.
Only down 0.3% (unless there is another result?). Not even a couple of percent. Still, you are right that every little helps!
With Scottish Tories, it's more a case of every little hurts.
If Burnham's campaign didn't cash the cheque, it sounds like this is a non-story.
Indeed, it was not cashed after concerns Sky has said, so clearly just the Sun trying to set up a sting operation because of their differences with Burnham which has amounted to very little
Yeah right
Had it been a Tory no doubt you would have had the same defence and sympathy
Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.
Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.
If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
A deliciously ironic post, given her surname.
Somehow one doubts that she'd be happy even if every man in the country gifted her their severed penis on a plate, as she seems to yearn for.
Her birth name was Bailye, but she changed it to Proudman 2 years ago...
Bloody daft to put your photo on LinkedIn.
The solicitor may have been crass but there are better ways of fending off unwanted advances than the way she chose. Gentle mockery, for instance. Or even better: simply ignoring him.
It's thoroughly obnoxious.
I thought her response was po-faced and pompous, but if she had kept it private that would have been fine.
To post it publicly is unacceptable
Agreed. She gives professional women and feminists a bad name.
She's an ignorant idiot as well. I suffered much worse sexism when starting out in my career. One learns to deal with it. Fending off an unwanted and rather cack-handed compliment is a very minor issue. She'll self-combust if she ever encountered real sexist / mysogynist behaviour.
I think people are missing the core issue. She has "Been building a media profile for the past few years".
That't not a lawyer or a feminist, that's an egotistical narcissist.
Does anyone know what channel(s) are covering the announcement live on Saturday?
It would be surprising if Sky News and BBC News channel don't cover it, although you can never underestimate their ability to cut away to something else just at the vital moment.
I hope Nick Robinson isn't commentating on it again. Last time he told everyone David Miliband had won right up to the last moment when the figures were announced.
He said so after the first round figures had been declared. He was being interviewed while the second and third round figures were being declared. The BBC showed only the first and final rounds of the result being declared, but saw fit to waffle over the middle bit to explain to the viewers how AV worked and how the electoral college worked. That's how bad it was.
CNN has announced the line up for the debate next week at the Ronald Reagan Library.
The prime time debate will be the same 10 candidates as the Fox News debate, with the addition of Carly Fiorina, totalling 11.
The other 6 candidates will be in the earlier happy hour debate.
Fiorina was the clear winner of the first lower tier debate and as I recall the participation split was based on poll numbers. Has she been promoted to the senior debate based strictly on the rules or has it been fudged for ratings?
Chris Grayling saying we may end up with the Tom and Jerry show in reference to the Labour leadership I'm hoping for the Angela, Diane and Jerry show however...
CNN has announced the line up for the debate next week at the Ronald Reagan Library.
The prime time debate will be the same 10 candidates as the Fox News debate, with the addition of Carly Fiorina, totalling 11.
The other 6 candidates will be in the earlier happy hour debate.
Fiorina was the clear winner of the first lower tier debate and as I recall the participation split was based on poll numbers. Has she been promoted to the senior debate based strictly on the rules or has it been fudged for ratings?
CNN's original plan was to base qualifying on poll averages starting before the first debate. This would have excluded Carly.
They then changed to using polling averages only after the first debate, and hey presto Carly is in prime time.
It'll be interesting to see how she handles the big boys. She should be just fine.
Chris Grayling saying we may end up with the Tom and Jerry show in reference to the Labour leadership I'm hoping for the Angela, Diane and Jerry show however...
For some reason this made me think of an old schoolboy joke -
Why did Winston Churchill sleep with a gun under his pillow?
CNN has announced the line up for the debate next week at the Ronald Reagan Library.
The prime time debate will be the same 10 candidates as the Fox News debate, with the addition of Carly Fiorina, totalling 11.
The other 6 candidates will be in the earlier happy hour debate.
Fiorina was the clear winner of the first lower tier debate and as I recall the participation split was based on poll numbers. Has she been promoted to the senior debate based strictly on the rules or has it been fudged for ratings?
CNN's original plan was to base qualifying on poll averages starting before the first debate. This would have excluded Carly.
They then changed to using polling averages only after the first debate, and hey presto Carly is in prime time.
It'll be interesting to see how she handles the big boys. She should be just fine.
Cheers for making that clear - appreciated. And I agree that she should do well. I'm surprised that she's not there on polling merit and doing much better than she is, to be honest.
CNN has announced the line up for the debate next week at the Ronald Reagan Library.
The prime time debate will be the same 10 candidates as the Fox News debate, with the addition of Carly Fiorina, totalling 11.
The other 6 candidates will be in the earlier happy hour debate.
Fiorina was the clear winner of the first lower tier debate and as I recall the participation split was based on poll numbers. Has she been promoted to the senior debate based strictly on the rules or has it been fudged for ratings?
CNN's original plan was to base qualifying on poll averages starting before the first debate. This would have excluded Carly.
They then changed to using polling averages only after the first debate, and hey presto Carly is in prime time.
It'll be interesting to see how she handles the big boys. She should be just fine.
Cheers for making that clear - appreciated. And I agree that she should do well. I'm surprised that she's not there on polling merit and doing much better than she is, to be honest.
The top three are Trump, Fiorina (ex-boss of HP) and Carson (neurosurgeon). It is the same anti-politics-by-focus-group sentiment that has fuelled Corbyn's rise, and UKIP's and even, to an extent, the SNP's.
CNN has announced the line up for the debate next week at the Ronald Reagan Library.
The prime time debate will be the same 10 candidates as the Fox News debate, with the addition of Carly Fiorina, totalling 11.
The other 6 candidates will be in the earlier happy hour debate.
Fiorina was the clear winner of the first lower tier debate and as I recall the participation split was based on poll numbers. Has she been promoted to the senior debate based strictly on the rules or has it been fudged for ratings?
CNN's original plan was to base qualifying on poll averages starting before the first debate. This would have excluded Carly.
They then changed to using polling averages only after the first debate, and hey presto Carly is in prime time.
It'll be interesting to see how she handles the big boys. She should be just fine.
Cheers for making that clear - appreciated. And I agree that she should do well. I'm surprised that she's not there on polling merit and doing much better than she is, to be honest.
To be fair to CNN, they were under a great deal of pressure to make that change.
In a field of 17, where 2 (Trump and Carson) combined have over 50% of the votes, leaving the other 15 fighting over the scraps, it's too early to tell. Presumably Perry will be the first to drop out, and once the field starts to thin out then we'll see who breaks through.
CNN has announced the line up for the debate next week at the Ronald Reagan Library.
The prime time debate will be the same 10 candidates as the Fox News debate, with the addition of Carly Fiorina, totalling 11.
The other 6 candidates will be in the earlier happy hour debate.
Fiorina was the clear winner of the first lower tier debate and as I recall the participation split was based on poll numbers. Has she been promoted to the senior debate based strictly on the rules or has it been fudged for ratings?
CNN's original plan was to base qualifying on poll averages starting before the first debate. This would have excluded Carly.
They then changed to using polling averages only after the first debate, and hey presto Carly is in prime time.
It'll be interesting to see how she handles the big boys. She should be just fine.
Cheers for making that clear - appreciated. And I agree that she should do well. I'm surprised that she's not there on polling merit and doing much better than she is, to be honest.
The top three are Trump, Fiorina (ex-boss of HP) and Carson (neurosurgeon). It is the same anti-politics-by-focus-group sentiment that has fuelled Corbyn's rise, and UKIP's and even, to an extent, the SNP's.
The top 2 are Trump and Carson, the only ones in double digits. Carly floats somewhere in the middle most of the time on high single digits.
Frankly I doubt any of the 3 of them use focus groups much - you KNOW Trump doesn't. That's one of the reasons they are popular. They say what they believe, not focus group tested stuff which comes off as insincere. For an example of this, Hillary is a perfect place to look.
If Burnham's campaign didn't cash the cheque, it sounds like this is a non-story.
Indeed, it was not cashed after concerns Sky has said, so clearly just the Sun trying to set up a sting operation because of their differences with Burnham which has amounted to very little
Yeah right
Had it been a Tory no doubt you would have had the same defence and sympathy
Or not.....
I am generally a Tory and an ex Tory Uni chair so of course
Labour vote share up a bit, but turnout so low that probably means next to nothing. No sign of either a Corbyn surge or of Labour crashing and burning yet.
If you are interested to participate in the hugely popular and exciting game satta matka, it is a good idea to understand the best benefits of playing the game online. Read the details from here and participate to win the huge amount of profit. More details visit us at: http://sattamatkaresults.in/
Comments
I don't comment at Guido these days. It's lost the sharp humour and has just got shouty.
SNP HOLD.
Labour GAIN from Green.
CORBYN SURGEE!! COMRADES ARISE!
The X-Files episode set in Haltemprice?
You'll be familiar with the concept of Genetic Eve as a common ancestor several 10000s years ago. Actually, she is only identified through maternal lines, your mother, your mother's mother, 1 single person only in each generation until the same woman appears on everybody's ancestry, the female lineages of all the other women alive in her time having been broken. There is also a Genetic Adam traced through paternal lines in the same way, who probably lived at a different time and in a different place from Eve.
It is once you get to considering both male and female lines that things get really interesting, because as you go to 2 / 4 / 8 doubling with each generation (actually less than doubling, as your distant cousins start marrying each other) we each have vast numbers of ancestors. As best can be told, the most recent common ancestor of all humanity lived only around 2000 years ago! For that to be so, every Latin American, every Aborigine, every African, every Arab Muslim has had at least one immigrant ancestor since colonisation, probably European, and you can reasonably speculate that the last common ancestor of all humanity resided and travelled in the Roman Empire.
Successful large-scale political, industrial and religious organisation, the conquests and mass migrations have been the seed pods on which certain nations and people have dominated the world. We know this is true politically, it also holds genetically. So, mixing is unavoidable, the question is simply one of extent and timescale - the shorter the timescale of mixing, the more homogeneous we will become and the less we will be able to discern different genetic tribes like the ones identified within the UK a few months ago.
Whatever we do about any particular wave of immigration, the trend of global travel is inescapably that more people will die in countries other than where they were born, and the net flow of migration will never, ever be from rich to poor. You may demand better control over the tide, but a world, a UK of no immigration at all just isn't in any sense a realistic or possible end point.
I thought her response was po-faced and pompous, but if she had kept it private that would have been fine.
To post it publicly is unacceptable
Agreed. She gives professional women and feminists a bad name.
She's an ignorant idiot as well. I suffered much worse sexism when starting out in my career. One learns to deal with it. Fending off an unwanted and rather cack-handed compliment is a very minor issue. She'll self-combust if she ever encountered real sexist / mysogynist behaviour.
Leith Walk (Edinburgh) result:
SNP - 36.2% (+7.3)
LAB - 25.7% (-8.0)
GRN - 21.8% (+1.3)
CON - 7.9% (-0.3)
LDEM - 4.0% (-1.1)
Kind of embarrassing that even the prospect of Corbyn did little to stem the losses thus far.
Well, that should take the sting out of the, um, sting.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/11/andy-burnham-to-report-the-sun-to-ipso-after-jeremy-corbyn-sting?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
Well, unless US practice is very different from British (which I know is not the case), the material is classified by the originator at the time of creation, not post facto. Thus if information deemed classified by NSA or NGA is found without classification markings on it, it strongly implies that someone, somewhere along the communication chain has removed the classification markings.
And, as you stated, if something that should be classified but has no markings comes to your attention, then you have the obligation to re-classify it.
http://www.realclearworld.com/2015/09/10/labour_set_to_elect_a_quasi-communist_169791.html
[from yesterday's thread] "Oh my word. The article referred to in this article is priceless. But even better are the comments. I particularly like the tips on how to be taken seriously given by Mark Lang."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423777/unc-student-op-ed-sexist-news-observer
The irony is that she almost certainly has intact genitalia, while it is very likely that all the men she claims are failing to respect her have mutilated genitals.
The Liberals lost 14 out of 17 seats, going to 6 Labour, 6 SNP, 3 Green (Tories and Labour lost one gained one).
The Liberals disgraceful behaviour over the worthless trams really hit them hard but somehow SLAB avoided the same outcome. Which is ironic because AIUI the nasty piece of trash who destroyed much of Scottish Transport under Labour was Craig Begg who is a Labour HighHeidYin currently being used by Labour in London.
A lot of SNP/Green split votes will now consolidate as SNP/SNP votes if that sort of result gets repeated.
There are some truly great comments in the comment section. Here's another I love:
"I'm afraid these poor souls are in for a lifetime of disappointment. I myself find it refreshing, that merely existing is a micro-aggression to this generation of self-absorbed pansies."
She's an ignorant idiot as well. I suffered much worse sexism when starting out in my career. One learns to deal with it. Fending off an unwanted and rather cack-handed compliment is a very minor issue. She'll self-combust if she ever encountered real sexist / mysogynist behaviour.
I think people are missing the core issue. She has "Been building a media profile for the past few years".
That't not a lawyer or a feminist, that's an egotistical narcissist.
So the SDP might win the next by-election - just as they did when Foot was leader - except this time without Roy Jenkins.
As things stand the 2017 Edinburgh vote will be a clear SNP win, with Labour and the Greens fighting it out for the coalition slot and the Liberals and Tories fighting it out to keep a couple of seats.
The Tories down to single figures in Edinburgh will be an interesting outcome and does not bode well for Carpet Bagger Ruth Davidson actually winning a seat. As it stands if any Tory in Edinburgh wins a Constituency (maybe through tactical voting) then Ruth could be an ex-Politician.
Had it been a Tory no doubt you would have had the same defence and sympathy
Or not.....
That't not a lawyer or a feminist, that's an egotistical narcissist.
I'd still shag her though.
The prime time debate will be the same 10 candidates as the Fox News debate, with the addition of Carly Fiorina, totalling 11.
The other 6 candidates will be in the earlier happy hour debate.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16074/production/_85482209_1001ic-dtndt-1-110915-a001c-dt.jpg
Or not?
I'm assuming there's no connection.
Has she been promoted to the senior debate based strictly on the rules or has it been fudged for ratings?
I'm hoping for the Angela, Diane and Jerry show however...
They then changed to using polling averages only after the first debate, and hey presto Carly is in prime time.
It'll be interesting to see how she handles the big boys. She should be just fine.
Why did Winston Churchill sleep with a gun under his pillow?
Because there was a jerry under his bed.
In a field of 17, where 2 (Trump and Carson) combined have over 50% of the votes, leaving the other 15 fighting over the scraps, it's too early to tell. Presumably Perry will be the first to drop out, and once the field starts to thin out then we'll see who breaks through.
Frankly I doubt any of the 3 of them use focus groups much - you KNOW Trump doesn't. That's one of the reasons they are popular. They say what they believe, not focus group tested stuff which comes off as insincere. For an example of this, Hillary is a perfect place to look.
http://www.sandwell.gov.uk/info/200205/elections_and_voting/3521/blackheath_by-election_2015
Labour vote share up a bit, but turnout so low that probably means next to nothing. No sign of either a Corbyn surge or of Labour crashing and burning yet.