On topic: the guy is bonkers. What's most worrying is not so much that he's on the GOP line up and temporarily polling well - we're used to that from previous election cycles - but that he's had positions of responsibility as a surgeon and working for John Hopkins, which I'd always regarded as a serious medical and academic institution.
On Tory civil war: err, really? Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Bernard Jenkin, Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Nuttall? All sound chaps, no doubt, but it's hardly a surprise that they're not sudden converts to the Remain camp.
On topic: the guy is bonkers. What's most worrying is not so much that he's on the GOP line up and temporarily polling well - we're used to that from previous election cycles - but that he's had positions of responsibility as a surgeon and working for John Hopkins, which I'd always regarded as a serious medical and academic institution.
I have been inside the great pyramid. It is a pretty horrible and claustrophobic place. I think that the grain storage capacity would be fairly limited. There may have been a "loaves and fishes" type storage solution though.
On topic: the guy is bonkers. What's most worrying is not so much that he's on the GOP line up and temporarily polling well - we're used to that from previous election cycles - but that he's had positions of responsibility as a surgeon and working for John Hopkins, which I'd always regarded as a serious medical and academic institution.
Johns Hopkins - note s on Johns - is indeed a serious academic and scientific institution.
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
I don't think Einstein embraced bonkers theories which don't stand up to 30 seconds of testing against the evidence.
On topic: the guy is bonkers. What's most worrying is not so much that he's on the GOP line up and temporarily polling well - we're used to that from previous election cycles - but that he's had positions of responsibility as a surgeon and working for John Hopkins, which I'd always regarded as a serious medical and academic institution.
Well as far as I am aware no one died when he was operating on them and he has a degree from Yale
In that polling 25% of Americans either didn't know what the pyramids were for or thought they were for something other than burying people in. Obviously they don't follow the same history curriculum in the US as we do in the UK. Even in the current primary history curriculum (which is very UK oriented) there is still room for Ancient Egypt.
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
I don't think Einstein embraced bonkers theories which don't stand up to 30 seconds of testing against the evidence.
On Tory civil war: err, really? Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Bernard Jenkin, Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Nuttall? All sound chaps, no doubt, but it's hardly a surprise that they're not sudden converts to the Remain camp.
How would the Tory party supporters split on this:
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
I don't think Einstein embraced bonkers theories which don't stand up to 30 seconds of testing against the evidence.
On Tory civil war: err, really? Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Bernard Jenkin, Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Nuttall? All sound chaps, no doubt, but it's hardly a surprise that they're not sudden converts to the Remain camp.
How would the Tory party supporters split on this:
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
I don't think Einstein embraced bonkers theories which don't stand up to 30 seconds of testing against the evidence.
Isn't that a requirement of becoming the republican candidate ?
On Tory civil war: err, really? Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Bernard Jenkin, Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Nuttall? All sound chaps, no doubt, but it's hardly a surprise that they're not sudden converts to the Remain camp.
How would the Tory party supporters split on this:
Remember: the pyramids were a government procurement project. They started off as mooring posts for alien spaceships, but they built the bases the wrong shape. They then decided to convert them to grain stores, but did not build enough cavities within. In the end they just decided to chuck their dead leaders in them.
And as with all government projects, they made the same mistakes several times before giving up and just building a large statue of cat. Even then they couldn't decide on what sort of cat, and added a beard because they had a little extra unspent money at end-of-year.
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
I don't think Einstein embraced bonkers theories which don't stand up to 30 seconds of testing against the evidence.
Isn't that a requirement of becoming the republican candidate ?
In the lesser known second part of the Gettysburg address, Lincoln set out the case that the Parthenon was in fact a co-op.
Fantastic... I've just found mark reckless' losers speech from election night... not seen that before.
how many more such gems of coverage not shown on the night (now watched once or twice on iplayer) are there out there for me still to unearth and enjoy.......
I'm just sorry that having stood against him purely in order to try and contribute to him losing the seat, I wasn't able to be there to hear his speech on the night, due to being an election agent somewhere else. Lost my (self-funded) deposit, but it was worth every penny to see him lose.
The Sun has got noticeably more hostile to the Tories since Rebekah returned to the helm.
The Sun will be for Out, Dave will be gone by the next election, it is not that surprising. When it comes to EU ref we may end up with the odd situation of Dave being backed by the Guardian, the Independent and the Mirror (alongside the FT and indirectly the BBC) and opposed by the Sun, the Mail, the Express, the Telegraph and perhaps the Times
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
I don't think Einstein embraced bonkers theories which don't stand up to 30 seconds of testing against the evidence.
You forget that Einstein was german.
In America holding opinions like those is usual, it's fun to watch. See Trump entering the "War on Christmas" by calling for a boycott of Starbucks over some red coffee cups in Springfield (could be the Springfield you're thinking of):
On Tory civil war: err, really? Bill Cash, Peter Bone, Bernard Jenkin, Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Nuttall? All sound chaps, no doubt, but it's hardly a surprise that they're not sudden converts to the Remain camp.
How would the Tory party supporters split on this:
60 OUT: 40 IN ?
Today's ICM has it Con voters
Remain 44%
Leave 39%
DK 17%
Tory voters will be the swing voters in EU ref as Labour voters were in indyref
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
Because no one cares about those countries, why would anyone feel the need to conquer Belgium these days?
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
I don't think Einstein embraced bonkers theories which don't stand up to 30 seconds of testing against the evidence.
Isn't that a requirement of becoming the republican candidate ?
In the lesser known second part of the Gettysburg address, Lincoln set out the case that the Parthenon was in fact a co-op.
Good grief, how the mighty fall.
Then he went to the Gettysburg Starbucks and complained about their non-santa christmas cups...
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
Because no one cares about those countries, why would anyone feel the need to conquer Belgium these days?
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
I don't think Einstein embraced bonkers theories which don't stand up to 30 seconds of testing against the evidence.
You forget that Einstein was german.
In America holding opinions like those is usual, it's fun to watch. See Trump entering the "War on Christmas" by calling for a boycott of Starbucks over some red coffee cups in Springfield (could be the Springfield you're thinking of):
"Muslim voters in Birmingham 'told they would go to hell if they didn't vote Labour'"
Well, at least that's a solid reason.
Edit: Runnymede beat me to it.
Birmingham is an utter dump.
Nonsense! I'm posting from there right now
But that is the perspective of an Essex boy!
Have you diversified into canals in the Venice of England?
No, still doing railways. Last few conquests - er, I mean additions - Newbury to Westbury, Westbury to Bath, Westbury to Frome, Longleat miniature railway, Crewe to Chester, Colchester to Norwich, and Bicester to the brand new Oxford Parkway.
Catenary uprights already in place in Brum city centre for the upcoming Midland Metro extension from Snow Hill to New Street. Down in London, Wimbledon also has two new tram platforms (one hitherto).
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
I don't think Einstein embraced bonkers theories which don't stand up to 30 seconds of testing against the evidence.
Isn't that a requirement of becoming the republican candidate ?
In the lesser known second part of the Gettysburg address, Lincoln set out the case that the Parthenon was in fact a co-op.
Good grief, how the mighty fall.
Then he went to the Gettysburg Starbucks and complained about their non-santa christmas cups...
That was a political ad on behalf of everyone but Rubio. (P.S. Bush is really unpopular with republicans right now, so having an ad of him endorsing Rubio is not a good idea)
Look at the countries getting a free ride off the back of NATO:
1) Iceland (Strategic position in the NAO apparently though)... 0.03% Def spend 2) Luxembourg 0.5%
The country that lands us with Jean Claude "Cognac Fur frustuck" Junker, and sets up it's corporation tax to beggar the rest of Europe whilst massively benefiting more than any other country from European empire building is also contributing a quarter of what it should do to NATO.
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
They're all part of a nuclear-armed alliance.
Ireland isn't in NATO.
Ireland knows we'd support it if it was ever invaded. It has De Facto MAD Nuclear 'protection' without ever having to contribute a penny. Good deal for Ireland.
(Yes yes I do know Irish history before anyone pulls me up on historical points !)
That was a political ad on behalf of everyone but Rubio. (P.S. Bush is really unpopular with republicans right now, so having an ad of him endorsing Rubio is not a good idea)
You've missed the point - it's an anti-Bush ad more than a pro-Rubio ad. Talking heads think it's ace.
In other news the FBI is expanding - again - the Clinton email investigation and is now including her aides.
That was a political ad on behalf of everyone but Rubio. (P.S. Bush is really unpopular with republicans right now, so having an ad of him endorsing Rubio is not a good idea)
You've missed the point - it's an anti-Bush ad more than a pro-Rubio ad. Talking heads think it's ace.
In other news the FBI is expanding - again - the Clinton email investigation and is now including her aides.
So far the Talking heads have an accuracy rate on this election race as Floating heads in a jar.
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
They're all part of a nuclear-armed alliance.
Also worth noting Belgium has been invaded twice, and Denmark once, in the last 100 years.
Both countries were taken over.
Trident might seem like a waste of money - paying for something we'll never use - but it keeps us safe.
UK Law says they must track everyone and everything, whilst Belgian law will fine them for doing so.
What happens if you're a Belgian citizen communicating with your Uncle in Islamabad from your bedsit in London. If Facebook inform GCHQ are they in breach of Belgian law :?
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
They're all part of a nuclear-armed alliance.
Ireland isn't in NATO.
They rely on NATO to protect them.
It's all very moral, to moan and bitch about nuclear weapons and defence expenditure, while expectin Uncle Sam to come to the rescue.
That was a political ad on behalf of everyone but Rubio. (P.S. Bush is really unpopular with republicans right now, so having an ad of him endorsing Rubio is not a good idea)
You've missed the point - it's an anti-Bush ad more than a pro-Rubio ad. Talking heads think it's ace.
In other news the FBI is expanding - again - the Clinton email investigation and is now including her aides.
So far the Talking heads have an accuracy rate on this election race as Floating heads in a jar.
Not so - on commercials they're pretty much spot on.
On Trump and Carson we're all amazed they've gone this long.
On Sanders - socialist and fried chicken purveyor - we're just amazed.
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
They're all part of a nuclear-armed alliance.
Also worth noting Belgium has been invaded twice, and Denmark once, in the last 100 years.
Both countries were taken over.
Trident might seem like a waste of money - paying for something we'll never use - but it keeps us safe.
Didn't realise we had a nuclear defence system back in 1939, must have missed that one at school.
The debates (happy hour starts in 20 minutes) should be interesting.
Jeb has to do well. He has a conference call with his big donors after the debate. Carson isn't good on numbers. He has to get it right. Rubio will be fine. Carly should be in her element Trump will do his shtick. I'd be great. It'll be 'yuge' Christie should shine in happy hour.
The debates (happy hour starts in 20 minutes) should be interesting.
Jeb has to do well. He has a conference call with his big donors after the debate. Carson isn't good on numbers. He has to get it right. Rubio will be fine. Carly should be in her element Trump will do his shtick. I'd be great. It'll be 'yuge' Christie should shine in happy hour.
The debates (happy hour starts in 20 minutes) should be interesting.
Jeb has to do well. He has a conference call with his big donors after the debate. Carson isn't good on numbers. He has to get it right. Rubio will be fine. Carly should be in her element Trump will do his shtick. I'd be great. It'll be 'yuge' Christie should shine in happy hour.
At least we won't have the CNBC debacle again.
I still think the race is Rubio's to lose.
Who is the broadcaster for this debate
It's an FBN/WSJ debate - broadcast on Fox Business Network.
The 7pm debate is Santorum, Christie, Huckabee and Jindal.
The 9pm debate is Kasich, Bush, Rubio, Trump, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina and Paul.
That was a political ad on behalf of everyone but Rubio. (P.S. Bush is really unpopular with republicans right now, so having an ad of him endorsing Rubio is not a good idea)
You've missed the point - it's an anti-Bush ad more than a pro-Rubio ad. Talking heads think it's ace.
In other news the FBI is expanding - again - the Clinton email investigation and is now including her aides.
Too subtle, don't you think? The viewer needs to remember that (a) Bush attacked Rubio and (b) Rubio laughed it off. In Britain, only a small subset of viewers would recall that much - are Republican primary voters much more attentive?
That was a political ad on behalf of everyone but Rubio. (P.S. Bush is really unpopular with republicans right now, so having an ad of him endorsing Rubio is not a good idea)
You've missed the point - it's an anti-Bush ad more than a pro-Rubio ad. Talking heads think it's ace.
In other news the FBI is expanding - again - the Clinton email investigation and is now including her aides.
Too subtle, don't you think? The viewer needs to remember that (a) Bush attacked Rubio and (b) Rubio laughed it off. In Britain, only a small subset of viewers would recall that much - are Republican primary voters much more attentive?
From the CNBC debacle there are a couple of clips that got almost endless play on the news networks, including Cruz's putdown of the biased moderators, and Rubio's putdown of Bush. Everyone knows about it, which is why they made the ad, and why it's effective.
Be honest - we don't have enough info on any of them to run the numbers yet. As the campaign moves forward that will happen to some extent. The one to watch on this is Carson. He's pretty wobbly on numbers.
Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.
The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.
Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
Has Ireland been invaded ? Why doesn't Belgium, Denmark etc. feel the need for nuclear weapons ?
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
They're all part of a nuclear-armed alliance.
Also worth noting Belgium has been invaded twice, and Denmark once, in the last 100 years.
Both countries were taken over.
Trident might seem like a waste of money - paying for something we'll never use - but it keeps us safe.
Comments
BBC pedigree - Jerry Baker (WSJ editor) is on the panel.
Interesting note - Jeb Bush has scheduled a conference call with his major donors tonight after the debate..
http://bringvictory.com/
How would they tell the difference?
Effective yesterday US Soccer Federation recommends heading the ball is illegal for those under 10, and strongly urged for other youth games.
Apparently soccer worldwide has a major concussion problem, but no protocol. The NFL may have gotten there first, but it's coming in soccer too.
The first case of CTE has been found in a deceased (Pat Grange,age 28) soccer player, who died of ALS.
source: ESPN Outside The Lines
Carson's medical cred is beyond repute. Maybe it's the Einstein-like thing - medical genius but can't balance a check book, or in his case talk sense on non-political subjects.
Obviously they don't follow the same history curriculum in the US as we do in the UK. Even in the current primary history curriculum (which is very UK oriented) there is still room for Ancient Egypt.
60 OUT: 40 IN ?
http://bit.ly/1WLAwpT
Remain 44%
Leave 39%
DK 17%
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTfAWWHW4AE42qA.jpg
Good grief, how the mighty fall.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34770875
The whole thing not being worth a bag of horse sh*t.
You've lived in some real dumps
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/drinking-three-glasses-of-champagne-every-day-can-help-prevent-alzheimers-disease-a3109626.html
They now hope to carry out the experiment on pensioners.
I'm sure we can find some volunteers for this crucial work.
Have you diversified into canals in the Venice of England?
In America holding opinions like those is usual, it's fun to watch.
See Trump entering the "War on Christmas" by calling for a boycott of Starbucks over some red coffee cups in Springfield (could be the Springfield you're thinking of):
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-slams-carson-starbucks-before-record-crowd-in-illinois/
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/starbucks-waging-war-christmas-red-cup-stirs-controversy-n460721
What fun if the only major problem of your nation is the colour of coffee cups.
Trident has got nothing to do with defence. It is to allow the Military Industries complex to earn tons of money and for Unions to gloat that they have so many Unionised workers on the payroll. An unholy alliance !
http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/Keith-Vaz-says-Christmas-Coca-Cola-truck-welcome/story-28112187-detail/story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Parkway_railway_station
Catenary uprights already in place in Brum city centre for the upcoming Midland Metro extension from Snow Hill to New Street. Down in London, Wimbledon also has two new tram platforms (one hitherto).
(Note to consumers: slogan may contain nuts, an ingenious paradox)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf_xHVKvIEw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q66Y3WC5snk
(P.S. Bush is really unpopular with republicans right now, so having an ad of him endorsing Rubio is not a good idea)
1) Iceland (Strategic position in the NAO apparently though)... 0.03% Def spend
2) Luxembourg 0.5%
The country that lands us with Jean Claude "Cognac Fur frustuck" Junker, and sets up it's corporation tax to beggar the rest of Europe whilst massively benefiting more than any other country from European empire building is also contributing a quarter of what it should do to NATO.
Well colour me shocked.
(Yes yes I do know Irish history before anyone pulls me up on historical points !)
In other news the FBI is expanding - again - the Clinton email investigation and is now including her aides.
Both countries were taken over.
Trident might seem like a waste of money - paying for something we'll never use - but it keeps us safe.
UK Law says they must track everyone and everything, whilst Belgian law will fine them for doing so.
What happens if you're a Belgian citizen communicating with your Uncle in Islamabad from your bedsit in London.
If Facebook inform GCHQ are they in breach of Belgian law :?
It's all very moral, to moan and bitch about nuclear weapons and defence expenditure, while expectin Uncle Sam to come to the rescue.
Awesome country that was created just to get up the noses of the French
On Trump and Carson we're all amazed they've gone this long.
On Sanders - socialist and fried chicken purveyor - we're just amazed.
Jeb has to do well. He has a conference call with his big donors after the debate.
Carson isn't good on numbers. He has to get it right.
Rubio will be fine.
Carly should be in her element
Trump will do his shtick. I'd be great. It'll be 'yuge'
Christie should shine in happy hour.
At least we won't have the CNBC debacle again.
I still think the race is Rubio's to lose.
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/laughing-at-death-and-disaster-could-be-an-early-dementia-warning-sign/
The 7pm debate is Santorum, Christie, Huckabee and Jindal.
The 9pm debate is Kasich, Bush, Rubio, Trump, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina and Paul.
I believe you can stream it on foxbusiness.com
I have 2 passports - and the UK one is 3 times the price of the US one.
The questions have been detailed, tough and fair. Designed to elicit info from the candidates.
Example - an unemployed woman in New Hampshire is on benefits: how would you incentivize her to work.
The one exception, echoing back to the CNBC debacle - name one Democrat you admire. They all leapt on it.
Santorum's sounds quite workable.
It was a good substantive debate. What a contrast to the CNBC debacle.
My initial reaction is that Christie won.