If remain does win,I say open borders to everyone,it's only fair that the rest of the country have the benefit of poor unskilled immigration to the area's you live.
Just yesterday I walked past a Eastern European drunk p!$$ing in the bushes on the main road in broad daylight.
Don't know how these drunks are surviving over here,plenty on the local bench.
Yes because no person born in the UK has ever been known to piss in the street.
A month ago I did not believe I was going to bother with this referendum. I have never been fond of the EU as an institution and the whole exercise seemed like a private argument among people on the right. Then I started to think about it and concluded: 1. Our business definitely benefits from full, unfettered access to the single market and I don't see all this red tape that is supposed to hold us back. 2. Being based in an EU member state has not prevented us from doing business and growing in either the US or Asia. 3. Personally, I like the idea of the four freedoms and would not want to put them at risk. 4. The fact that we are having this referendum in the first place says to me the British people remain sovereign. We have the right to decide. We are being asked to give up stuff with absolutely no guarantees that we will end up with anything better or even similar. I just don't see the point.
Excellent summary of how I see it (as the MD of business employing circa 50 people including some from other EU countries).
If remain does win,I say open borders to everyone,it's only fair that the rest of the country have the benefit of poor unskilled immigration to the area's you live.
Just yesterday I walked past a Eastern European drunk p!$$ing in the bushes on the main road in broad daylight.
Don't know how these drunks are surviving over here,plenty on the local bench.
Yes because no person born in the UK has ever been known to piss in the street.
If remain does win,I say open borders to everyone,it's only fair that the rest of the country have the benefit of poor unskilled immigration to the area's you live.
Just yesterday I walked past a Eastern European drunk p!$$ing in the bushes on the main road in broad daylight.
Don't know how these drunks are surviving over here,plenty on the local bench.
Yes because no person born in the UK has ever been known to piss in the street.
Yes lets import it has well pal.
Are you speaking English? If so it's not a dialect I'm familiar with.
I find the notion that 'militant/new' atheists are trying to undermine morality hilarious as a concept.
The concept of morality. Perhaps you'd like to explain the basis of morality in a Godless world. Dawkins himself has admitted it gives him severe difficulties, but I'm sure you'll manage with aplomb.
Easy. Empathy for fellow man, and other sentient beings up to a point of personal preference. I draw the line at prawns, for example. The ability to put oneself in their place means you would not wish to harm them.
If remain does win,I say open borders to everyone,it's only fair that the rest of the country have the benefit of poor unskilled immigration to the area's you live.
Just yesterday I walked past a Eastern European drunk p!$$ing in the bushes on the main road in broad daylight.
Don't know how these drunks are surviving over here,plenty on the local bench.
This site has declined, drastically, in the light of euroref. Sorry. Know it's your dad and all, but it no longer remotely reflects public opinion. It doesn't event attempt to do so. This is bad for bettors.
Fail.
Ps. Lol. This comment was aimed at rcs but it might as well be in response to this drivelling gibberish from the priorly sensible TSE
Why don't you try and contribute an article ? You've posted on here as long as I have (if not longer) and I'm told you write a bit.
I'm sure you could pen something worth reading and possibly even with a betting angle as I suggested earlier - something about why 50-55% LEAVE is a good bet.
As to "balance" - I think the number of posts, if not the number of posters, shows a clear majority for LEAVE. As for the threads themselves, you're right, we need more pro-LEAVE pieces.
Over to you.
IRL, there is zero need for a website to reflect "public opinion" to get things right.
Public opinion last time was that there would definitely be a hung parliament. David Herdson, not a balanced neutral but a partisan Conservative, got it right and said a majority was likely.
@Bromptonaut,well you understood my first post,I should have also said that in all the time I have lived in the area(and that's years),no I haven't seen no one p!ssing in broad daylight on a main road in full view of everyone.
But don't worry,if remain wins,I want this imported immigration for you,open the borders to everyone ,we should all share empathy for our fellow man.
This site has declined, drastically, in the light of euroref. Sorry. Know it's your dad and all, but it no longer remotely reflects public opinion. It doesn't event attempt to do so. This is bad for bettors.
Fail.
Ps. Lol. This comment was aimed at rcs but it might as well be in response to this drivelling gibberish from the priorly sensible TSE
Why don't you try and contribute an article ? You've posted on here as long as I have (if not longer) and I'm told you write a bit.
I'm sure you could pen something worth reading and possibly even with a betting angle as I suggested earlier - something about why 50-55% LEAVE is a good bet.
As to "balance" - I think the number of posts, if not the number of posters, shows a clear majority for LEAVE. As for the threads themselves, you're right, we need more pro-LEAVE pieces.
Over to you.
IRL, there is zero need for a website to reflect "public opinion" to get things right.
Public opinion last time was that there would definitely be a hung parliament. David Herdson, not a balanced neutral but a partisan Conservative, got it right and said a majority was likely.
How about RodCrosby, who kept faith with the Lebo and Norpoth model even after Lebo and Norpoth panicked, and as a result correctly predicted a majority about a year out.
This site has declined, drastically, in the light of euroref. Sorry. Know it's your dad and all, but it no longer remotely reflects public opinion. It doesn't event attempt to do so. This is bad for bettors.
Fail.
Ps. Lol. This comment was aimed at rcs but it might as well be in response to this drivelling gibberish from the priorly sensible TSE
Why don't you try and contribute an article ? You've posted on here as long as I have (if not longer) and I'm told you write a bit.
I'm sure you could pen something worth reading and possibly even with a betting angle as I suggested earlier - something about why 50-55% LEAVE is a good bet.
As to "balance" - I think the number of posts, if not the number of posters, shows a clear majority for LEAVE. As for the threads themselves, you're right, we need more pro-LEAVE pieces.
Over to you.
IRL, there is zero need for a website to reflect "public opinion" to get things right.
Public opinion last time was that there would definitely be a hung parliament. David Herdson, not a balanced neutral but a partisan Conservative, got it right and said a majority was likely.
How about RodCrosby, who kept faith with the Lebo and Norpoth model even after Lebo and Norpoth panicked, and as a result correctly predicted a majority about a year out.
Good example. Utter looper on politics in my view, but he got it right.
There is no need for political balance. If you had Herdson's articles four times a week and no Labour author, you would still be doing OK.
This site has declined, drastically, in the light of euroref. Sorry. Know it's your dad and all, but it no longer remotely reflects public opinion. It doesn't event attempt to do so. This is bad for bettors.
Fail.
Ps. Lol. This comment was aimed at rcs but it might as well be in response to this drivelling gibberish from the priorly sensible TSE
Why don't you try and contribute an article ? You've posted on here as long as I have (if not longer) and I'm told you write a bit.
I'm sure you could pen something worth reading and possibly even with a betting angle as I suggested earlier - something about why 50-55% LEAVE is a good bet.
As to "balance" - I think the number of posts, if not the number of posters, shows a clear majority for LEAVE. As for the threads themselves, you're right, we need more pro-LEAVE pieces.
Over to you.
IRL, there is zero need for a website to reflect "public opinion" to get things right.
Public opinion last time was that there would definitely be a hung parliament. David Herdson, not a balanced neutral but a partisan Conservative, got it right and said a majority was likely.
How about RodCrosby, who kept faith with the Lebo and Norpoth model even after Lebo and Norpoth panicked, and as a result correctly predicted a majority about a year out.
I independently arrived at the conclusion that a majority was possible about a year prior to the election. I'd been saying the Tories would win most votes for about 2 years before that.
L&N didn't really waver until their final forecasts around March 2015. Trying to herd towards the polls, I suspect.
I find the notion that 'militant/new' atheists are trying to undermine morality hilarious as a concept.
The concept of morality. Perhaps you'd like to explain the basis of morality in a Godless world. Dawkins himself has admitted it gives him severe difficulties, but I'm sure you'll manage with aplomb.
The "selfish gene" has a better chance of survival in a group which protects itself as a group, and has internal rules preventing fratricide. This enables the group to thrive relative to groups that have no such 'morality' (much the way that schooling fish individually are better protected from predators).
If the group does better relative to other groups, the gene propagates more widely through natural selection.
One does not need a God for morality to arise, develop and flourish. You just need natural selection of hereditary factors, both genes and memes.
Daniel Dennet is a much clearer thinker on these issues than Dawkins.
A month ago I did not believe I was going to bother with this referendum. I have never been fond of the EU as an institution and the whole exercise seemed like a private argument among people on the right. Then I started to think about it and concluded: 1. Our business definitely benefits from full, unfettered access to the single market and I don't see all this red tape that is supposed to hold us back. 2. Being based in an EU member state has not prevented us from doing business and growing in either the US or Asia. 3. Personally, I like the idea of the four freedoms and would not want to put them at risk. 4. The fact that we are having this referendum in the first place says to me the British people remain sovereign. We have the right to decide. We are being asked to give up stuff with absolutely no guarantees that we will end up with anything better or even similar. I just don't see the point.
Red tape ? Our pallets leave on a truck from Germany in the evening and the next morning by 10 am [ sometimes even before our warehouse has even opened ], the goods are delivered. No paperwork whatsoever except signing for the delivery of the goods.
That's how good it is today. Our software does the Interstat figures. No work involved.
I find the notion that 'militant/new' atheists are trying to undermine morality hilarious as a concept.
The concept of morality. Perhaps you'd like to explain the basis of morality in a Godless world. Dawkins himself has admitted it gives him severe difficulties, but I'm sure you'll manage with aplomb.
The "selfish gene" has a better chance of survival in a group which protects itself as a group, and has internal rules preventing fratricide. This enables the group to thrive relative to groups that have no such 'morality' (much the way that schooling fish individually are better protected from predators).
If the group does better relative to other groups, the gene propagates more widely through natural selection.
One does not need a God for morality to arise, develop and flourish. You just need natural selection of hereditary factors, both genes and memes.
Daniel Dennet is a much clearer thinker on these issues than Dawkins.
it might not be morality of the kind you like though.
does anyone actually believe that memes evolve similarly with genes? Dawkins is best at marketing, maybe out of his skill set. "Meme" was a successful neologism but a poor analogy.
Sorry to interrupt, but finding this is an interesting conversation. I do know that they were slightly later (from 1096) than the period you are talking about, but, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the mass migrations caused by the crusades and the religious pilgrimages?
There weren't any. There were at best around 30-40,000 Crusaders, for example, not the 6 million claimed by William of Malmesbury.
The inhabitants of Jerusalem remained overwhelmingly Jewish, Muslim and Jacobite.
I find the notion that 'militant/new' atheists are trying to undermine morality hilarious as a concept.
The concept of morality. Perhaps you'd like to explain the basis of morality in a Godless world. Dawkins himself has admitted it gives him severe difficulties, but I'm sure you'll manage with aplomb.
The "selfish gene" has a better chance of survival in a group which protects itself as a group, and has internal rules preventing fratricide. This enables the group to thrive relative to groups that have no such 'morality' (much the way that schooling fish individually are better protected from predators).
If the group does better relative to other groups, the gene propagates more widely through natural selection.
One does not need a God for morality to arise, develop and flourish. You just need natural selection of hereditary factors, both genes and memes.
Daniel Dennet is a much clearer thinker on these issues than Dawkins.
Richard Carrier is the classic on this topic. He spent ages patiently constructing a new morality around atheism and proto-feminism. Then he was revealed to be a serial philanderer, drunkard and liar, particularly at atheist conferences.
Which goes to show a fundie is a fundie, whatever their religion.
Comments
Excellent summary of how I see it (as the MD of business employing circa 50 people including some from other EU countries).
Easy. Empathy for fellow man, and other sentient beings up to a point of personal preference. I draw the line at prawns, for example. The ability to put oneself in their place means you would not wish to harm them.
No need for God, God vanishes. Poof.
Public opinion last time was that there would definitely be a hung parliament. David Herdson, not a balanced neutral but a partisan Conservative, got it right and said a majority was likely.
But don't worry,if remain wins,I want this imported immigration for you,open the borders to everyone ,we should all share empathy for our fellow man.
There is no need for political balance. If you had Herdson's articles four times a week and no Labour author, you would still be doing OK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3511897/Muslim-newsagent-killed-fellow-Muslim-travelled-200-miles-knife-posted-Happy-Easter-message-Christians.html
L&N didn't really waver until their final forecasts around March 2015. Trying to herd towards the polls, I suspect.
If the group does better relative to other groups, the gene propagates more widely through natural selection.
One does not need a God for morality to arise, develop and flourish. You just need natural selection of hereditary factors, both genes and memes.
Daniel Dennet is a much clearer thinker on these issues than Dawkins.
No pollster wants to move away from that too much.
That's how good it is today. Our software does the Interstat figures. No work involved.
does anyone actually believe that memes evolve similarly with genes? Dawkins is best at marketing, maybe out of his skill set. "Meme" was a successful neologism but a poor analogy.
The inhabitants of Jerusalem remained overwhelmingly Jewish, Muslim and Jacobite.
Which goes to show a fundie is a fundie, whatever their religion.