Monsieur Macron is in the FT today, calling for a sovereign European superstate, and combined European defence.
The EU could be a very different beast in a few years. I wonder if Scots really want to join this.
Every poll says they don't even want another referendum; they are sick to death of them. 61-39 against an EU related referendum in the most recent relevant Yougov.
Almost a third of 2014 Yes voters do not want the SNP campaigning for independence.
It reads as though they just want Sturgeon to take heed of one particular message: "you asked the question, we gave you an answer, now STFU."
Serious question: If I as a religous person didn't belive in sex outside marriage ( and therefore against gay sex) but I don't want any of these things to be illeagal in Britain and except everyones right to equal tratment, was friends with people who are gay and and have sex outside marriage and was civil with most (but prehaps declined to go to a wedding) would that be acceptable to people on here.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
But if the flag waver also believed in white supremacy, you'd have good reason to be suspicious. And this Muslim woman appears to support sharia law. That is to say: she supports a system which says women are intrinsically inferior to men, the way Nazis believed Jews were intrinsically inferior to Germans
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
She doesn't support Sharia law. She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
She has tweeted comments apparently in favour of sharia law. They might have been ironic, but we can only go by what she wrote. And they were positive about sharia law.
So she apparently supports sharia law, which is like saying you support racism, or Nazism, only sharia degrades and devalues women as being naturally inferior, rather than blacks or Jews, so it's weirdly OK with the liberal-Left
Or you know you could go by the fact she has a career as a civil rights activist, has campaigned for gay rights, has spoken at churches and synagogues, votes for Jewish socialists, has written plenty of opeds in favour of religious freedom, has public speeches on YouTube etc...
But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
So if someone went to a synagogue, wrote opeds about freedom, visited gay churches with disabled people, but then wrote tweets positively endorsing apartheid or Mein Kampf or Nazism, you'd just ignore it? Is that right?
Oh. it's only Nazism. She doesn't mean it. Hahahah. OK she's a bit in favour of Fascism, it's fine.
I know that. But he is talking about reimposing borders within Europe.
It shows that some politicians understand that the grand idea of having people move around freely, whether under FoM or Schengen, raise issues which need addressing.
The concerns about borders is not simply a British issue, no matter how much some might like to make out that the British are uniquely xenophobic/racist/wicked in this regard.
Serious question: If I as a religous person didn't belive in sex outside marriage ( and therefore against gay sex) but I don't want any of these things to be illeagal in Britain and except everyones right to equal tratment, was friends with people who are gay and and have sex outside marriage and was civil with most (but prehaps declined to go to a wedding) would that be acceptable to people on here.
Or would I be seen as not integrated?
Out of interest.
You would be seen as confused. And as has been pointed out, surely the wedding, which would dispel all your concerns about sex outside marriage, would be the one thing you would want to go to, rather than having to, say, endure evenings of pizza and too much red wine with them as friends while they weren't married?
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
But if the flag waver also believed in white supremacy, you'd have good reason to be suspicious. And this Muslim woman appears to support sharia law. That is to say: she supports a system which says women are intrinsically inferior to men, the way Nazis believed Jews were intrinsically inferior to Germans
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
She doesn't support Sharia law. She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
She has tweeted comments apparently in favour of sharia law. They might have been ironic, but we can only go by what she wrote. And they were positive about sharia law.
So she apparently supports sharia law, which is like saying you support racism, or Nazism, only sharia degrades and devalues women as being naturally inferior, rather than blacks or Jews, so it's weirdly OK with the liberal-Left
Or you know you could go by the fact she has a career as a civil rights activist, has campaigned for gay rights, has spoken at churches and synagogues, votes for Jewish socialists, has written plenty of opeds in favour of religious freedom, has public speeches on YouTube etc...
But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
So if someone went to a synagogue, wrote opeds about freedom, visited gay churches with disabled people, but then wrote tweets positively endorsing apartheid or Mein Kampf or Nazism, you'd just ignore it? Is that right?
Oh. it's only Nazism. She doesn't mean it. Hahahah. OK she's a bit in favour of Fascism, it's fine.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
But if the flag waver also believed in white supremacy, you'd have good reason to be suspicious. And this Muslim woman appears to support sharia law. That is to say: she supports a system which says women are intrinsically inferior to men, the way Nazis believed Jews were intrinsically inferior to Germans
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
She doesn't support Sharia law. She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
She has tweeted comments apparently in favour of sharia law. They might have been ironic, but we can only go by what she wrote. And they were positive about sharia law.
So she apparently supports sharia law, which is like saying you support racism, or Nazism, only sharia degrades and devalues women as being naturally inferior, rather than blacks or Jews, so it's weirdly OK with the liberal-Left
Or you know you could go by the fact she has a career as a civil rights activist, has campaigned for gay rights, has spoken at churches and synagogues, votes for Jewish socialists, has written plenty of opeds in favour of religious freedom, has public speeches on YouTube etc...
But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
So if someone went to a synagogue, wrote opeds about freedom, visited gay churches with disabled people, but then wrote tweets positively endorsing apartheid or Mein Kampf or Nazism, you'd just ignore it? Is that right?
Oh. it's only Nazism. She doesn't mean it. Hahahah. OK she's a bit in favour of Fascism, it's fine.
Nicholas Watt: Govt source: @thesnp will look like a roadblock on A50. Danger for @UKLabour is they could look like they are joining the roadblock
Jon Nicolson on This Week said the SNP had to respect the wishes of their voters, who voted overwhelmingly to Remain, and he hoped Labour MPs would show some backbone and vote the bill down
Serious question: If I as a religous person didn't belive in sex outside marriage ( and therefore against gay sex) but I don't want any of these things to be illeagal in Britain and except everyones right to equal tratment, was friends with people who are gay and and have sex outside marriage and was civil with most (but prehaps declined to go to a wedding) would that be acceptable to people on here.
Or would I be seen as not integrated?
Out of interest.
I think we're plodding off into the area of bias vs prejudice here. I would scorn anyone who claimed to be perfectly unbiased - it's a very human failing. Prejudice is knowingly acting on one's biases to the detriment of others.
However, I'm leery of using gender or sexual orientation or such as reasons for my own behaviour. I've met several gay people who I couldn't abide, but that was because they were obnoxious or humourless or whatever, nothing to do with who they slept with. Ditto trans folk ( and vice versa - there are people who used to be in my social circle who blank me on the basis of being TG, which I find more hurtful than if they did so on the basis of me being an over-opinionated windbag ).
To return to your question, I'm not entirely sure what 'integrated' means. You'd fit right in with certain (native Welsh) members of my local Conservative club, if that helps.
Serious question: If I as a religous person didn't belive in sex outside marriage ( and therefore against gay sex) but I don't want any of these things to be illeagal in Britain and except everyones right to equal tratment, was friends with people who are gay and and have sex outside marriage and was civil with most (but prehaps declined to go to a wedding) would that be acceptable to people on here.
Or would I be seen as not integrated?
Out of interest.
I would consider your outlook to be entirely reasonable.
Some people would call you bigot, for failing to endorse the prevailing opinion.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
She doesn't support Sharia law. She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
Or But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
So if someone went to a synagogue, wrote opeds about freedom, visited gay churches with disabled people, but then wrote tweets positively endorsing apartheid or Mein Kampf or Nazism, you'd just ignore it? Is that right?
Oh. it's only Nazism. She doesn't mean it. Hahahah. OK she's a bit in favour of Fascism, it's fine.
That is incredible, the amount of liberal hyperventilating on Twitter, at the time, saying LOOK LOOK LOOK he's just a Latino nutter STOP BEING ISLAMOPHOBIC,..
And it was ISIS all along.
So it seems. Inspired by if not under direct orders. One of the "lone wolves" that don't count I suppose.
Seemed to disappear from the News pretty quickly didn't it?
Dodgy source, so could be #fakenews but seems he liked to go by the name of "Aashiq Hammad"
Screaming Eagles will prob refuse to answer, but what are the pink lines?
Key is on right.
I've read it ten times and still don't fully grasp what each one means.
Neither do Ipsos it seems...
It's a Lib Dem chart. The pink is the most important issue, red is an aggregation of the percent of any mentions of the issue (not only most important).
So actually the NHS is picked as the most important issue by just 10% of respondants.
Nicholas Watt: Govt source: @thesnp will look like a roadblock on A50. Danger for @UKLabour is they could look like they are joining the roadblock
Jon Nicolson on This Week said the SNP had to respect the wishes of their voters, who voted overwhelmingly to Remain, and he hoped Labour MPs would show some backbone and vote the bill down
I'm guessing John Nicolson is less keen on respecting the wishes of his voters who voted to remain in the UK....
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
Bu
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
She has tweeted comments e liberal-Left
Or But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
So if someone went to a synagogue, wrote opeds about freedom, visited gay churches with disabled people, but then wrote tweets positively endorsing apartheid or Mein Kampf or Nazism, you'd just ignore it? Is that right?
Oh. it's only Nazism. She doesn't mean it. Hahahah. OK she's a bit in favour of Fascism, it's fine.
That is incredible, the amount of liberal hyperventilating on Twitter, at the time, saying LOOK LOOK LOOK he's just a Latino nutter STOP BEING ISLAMOPHOBIC,..
And it was ISIS all along.
FUCK ME!
You mean ISIS is a dangerous, murderous terrorist organisation?
Who'd have thought. Spanish guy (clue = name: Esteban) is ISIS sympathiser. What are you trying to prove here? That ISIS is a nasty organisation? Well newsflash, we knew that. That people hope that a horrible act is not horrible and premeditated but it is? That too. It's an understandable human reaction.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
Bu
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
She has tweeted comments e liberal-Left
Or But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
So if someone went to a synagogue, wrote opeds about freedom, visited gay churches with disabled people, but then wrote tweets positively endorsing apartheid or Mein Kampf or Nazism, you'd just ignore it? Is that right?
Oh. it's only Nazism. She doesn't mean it. Hahahah. OK she's a bit in favour of Fascism, it's fine.
That is incredible, the amount of liberal hyperventilating on Twitter, at the time, saying LOOK LOOK LOOK he's just a Latino nutter STOP BEING ISLAMOPHOBIC,..
And it was ISIS all along.
FUCK ME!
You mean ISIS is a dangerous, murderous terrorist organisation?
Who'd have thought. Spanish guy (clue = name: Esteban) is ISIS sympathiser. What are you trying to prove here? That ISIS is a nasty organisation? Well newsflash, we knew that. That people hope that a horrible act is not horrible and premeditated but it is? That too. It's an understandable human reaction.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
Bu
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
But it suits SeanT if she 't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
She has tweeted comments e liberal-Left
Or But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
So if someone went to a synagogue, wrote opeds about freedom, visited gay churches with disabled people, but then wrote tweets positively endorsing apartheid or Mein Kampf or Nazism, you'd just ignore it? Is that right?
Oh. it's only Nazism. She doesn't mean it. Hahahah. OK she's a bit in favour of Fascism, it's fine.
That is incredible, the amount of liberal hyperventilating on Twitter, at the time, saying LOOK LOOK LOOK he's just a Latino nutter STOP BEING ISLAMOPHOBIC,..
And it was ISIS all along.
FUCK ME!
You mean ISIS is a dangerous, murderous terrorist organisation?
Who'd have thought. Spanish guy (clue = name: Esteban) is ISIS sympathiser. What are you trying to prove here? That ISIS is a nasty organisation? Well newsflash, we knew that. That people hope that a horrible act is not horrible and premeditated but it is? That too. It's an understandable human reaction.
What exactly are you saying here?
What exactly are you failing to acknowledge here?
Not sure. Here's what I am acknowledging: that this was an ISIS-inspired event, that the press and public forlornly hoped was not an ISIS-inspired event, and I am also acknowledging that @SeanT and the guy I irritate are running around like Corporal Jones not panicking.
Bewildered Scots, who have no real appetite for another referendum even if they are worried about the direction Britain is taking under Mrs May, may well wonder what happened to Ms Sturgeon's vow less than a year ago to make education her "top priority".
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
Bu
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
That is incredible, the amount of liberal hyperventilating on Twitter, at the time, saying LOOK LOOK LOOK he's just a Latino nutter STOP BEING ISLAMOPHOBIC,..
And it was ISIS all along.
FUCK ME!
You mean ISIS is a dangerous, murderous terrorist organisation?
Who'd have thought. Spanish guy (clue = name: Esteban) is ISIS sympathiser. What are you trying to prove here? That ISIS is a nasty organisation? Well newsflash, we knew that. That people hope that a horrible act is not horrible and premeditated but it is? That too. It's an understandable human reaction.
What exactly are you saying here?
What exactly are you failing to acknowledge here?
Not sure. Here's what I am acknowledging: that this was an ISIS-inspired event, that the press and public forlornly hoped was not an ISIS-inspired event, and I am also acknowledging that @SeanT and the guy I irritate are running around like Corporal Jones not panicking.
Merely pointed out what he said and showed him doing the ISIS sign...
Might not have been the reason he killed people, I am open minded
Probably should just ignore ISIS - they'll perhaps go away then. I'm sure they'd enjoy a study of, say, GCSE Archaeology more than being professionally bonkers. As I understand it the course is getting easier too.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
Bu
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
You mean ISIS is a dangerous, murderous terrorist organisation?
Who'd have thought. Spanish guy (clue = name: Esteban) is ISIS sympathiser. What are you trying to prove here? That ISIS is a nasty organisation? Well newsflash, we knew that. That people hope that a horrible act is not horrible and premeditated but it is? That too. It's an understandable human reaction.
What exactly are you saying here?
What exactly are you failing to acknowledge here?
Not sure. Here'king.
Merely pointed out what he said and showed him doing the ISIS sign...
Might not have been the reason he killed people, I am open minded
I'm sure it's exactly the reason he killed people but I don't understand what the issue is.
Is it the denial by people who hoped against hope it was some Latino nutter? Or do you think there is an establishment policy of minimising/lying about Islamic terrorism?
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
But if the flag waver also believed in white
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
She doesn't support Sharia law. She's a civil rights activist who speaks for women's rights, minority rights and gay rights.
But it suits SeanT if she supported Sharia Law. She also supported Bernie Sanders, who is a Jew. So you can't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I'd be mortified if I spread fake news saying someone supported ISIS. Presumably the story is libellous and Linda can sue the fake news organisation?
She has tweeted comments apparently in favour of sharia law. They might have been ft
Or But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
That is incredible, the amount of liberal hyperventilating on Twitter, at the time, saying LOOK LOOK LOOK he's just a Latino nutter STOP BEING ISLAMOPHOBIC,..
And it was ISIS all along.
If you read the linked article it could be the CIA:
"Federal authorities in Alaska said Santiago told them prior to the attack that he was hearing voices and that his mind was being controlled by the CIA. Santiago made no such claim during the six-hour interview conducted shortly after the January 6 shooting at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Ferlazzo testified.
ISIS has not claimed responsibility for the attack."
Bearing in mind that this ex soldier served in Iraq, and was handed by the Alaska Police over to the mental health system, I would wait to hear what comes out in court. Has IS penetrated the US Army? or more likely, has the US Army failed once more to address the mental health issues of ex-servicemen.
That finger pointing to the sky is not an isis sign ffs. Thats like saying someone is a BNP supporter because they fly the union jack.
Bu
Sharia law must be driven to the extremes and disallowed. It should not be part of our discourse. It is no better than outright racism, indeed fascism.
But it suits SeanT if she 't throw the usual anti-semite accusation either.
I?
She has tweeted comments e liberal-Left
Or But I give up. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind.
You mean ISIS is a dangerous, murderous terrorist organisation?
Who'd have thought. Spanish guy (clue = name: Esteban) is ISIS sympathiser. What are you trying to prove here? That ISIS is a nasty organisation? Well newsflash, we knew that. That people hope that a horrible act is not horrible and premeditated but it is? That too. It's an understandable human reaction.
What exactly are you saying here?
What exactly are you failing to acknowledge here?
Not sure. Here'king.
Merely pointed out what he said and showed him doing the ISIS sign...
Might not have been the reason he killed people, I am open minded
I'm sure it's exactly the reason he killed people but I don't understand what the issue is.
Is it the denial by people who hoped against hope it was some Latino nutter? Or do you think there is an establishment policy of minimising/lying about Islamic terrorism?
I just saw people were showing pictures of people doing the ISIS sign and posted that one. People were mocked on here for apparently desiring it to be Islamic extremism, turns out it was. I think there are cases where the Islamic element is played down, for good or bad I don't know.
That is incredible, the amount of liberal hyperventilating on Twitter, at the time, saying LOOK LOOK LOOK he's just a Latino nutter STOP BEING ISLAMOPHOBIC,..
And it was ISIS all along.
If you read the linked article it could be the CIA:
"Federal authorities in Alaska said Santiago told them prior to the attack that he was hearing voices and that his mind was being controlled by the CIA. Santiago made no such claim during the six-hour interview conducted shortly after the January 6 shooting at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Ferlazzo testified.
ISIS has not claimed responsibility for the attack."
Bearing in mind that this ex soldier served in Iraq, and was handed by the Alaska Police over to the mental health system, I would wait to hear what comes out in court. Has IS penetrated the US Army? or more likely, has the US Army failed once more to address thecmental health issues of ex-servicemen.
I think a common shorthand which people adopt is that there is no union set of the categories "nutter" and "islamic terrorist".
It is possible and quite common I'm sure for someone with mental health issues to be a supporter of ISIS and for the combination of the two factors to produce an action.
The issue I have with your post is that it could be read as blaming the US Army for failing to provide a duty of care to those with mental health issues. There are of course many, many varieties and manifestations of those with such issues and I'm sure the US Army does much to address them. They can't, however, be held responsible for delayed manifestation or several other flavours.
Merely pointed out what he said and showed him doing the ISIS sign...
Might not have been the reason he killed people, I am open minded
I'm sism?
Yes, I believe there is an establishment policy of minimising (not exactly lying about) Islamic terrorism/migrant crime/sex attacks.
It's Rotherham but written across an entire continent. If you want to be flamboyant, it's Jimmy Savile turned into a dangerous evolution of a global religion, and it suits too many important people and too many political viewpoints that this be covered up, or at least occulted
Well to go all Confucian on yo 'ass, a people who are scared are easily governable. We have seen that of course with how New Lab pushed through any number of anti-freedom type laws.
Who benefits from minimising the Islamic angle vs who would benefit from a population who is happy for the government to increase its own powers in the name of anti-terrorism?
That is incredible, the amount of liberal hyperventilating on Twitter, at the time, saying LOOK LOOK LOOK he's just a Latino nutter STOP BEING ISLAMOPHOBIC,..
And it was ISIS all along.
If you read the linked article it could be the CIA:
"Federal authorities in
Bearing in mind that this ex soldier served in Iraq, and was handed by the Alaska Police over to the mental health system, I would wait to hear what comes out in court. Has IS penetrated the US Army? or more likely, has the US Army failed once more to address thecmental health issues of ex-servicemen.
I think a common shorthand which people adopt is that there is no union set of the categories "nutter" and "islamic terrorist".
It is possible and quite common I'm sure for someone with mental health issues to be a supporter of ISIS and for the combination of the two factors to produce an action.
The issue I have with your post is that it could be read as blaming the US Army for failing to provide a duty of care to those with mental health issues. There are of course many, many varieties and manifestations of those with such issues and I'm sure the US Army does much to address them. They can't, however, be held responsible for delayed manifestation or several other flavours.
I think the US Veterans Administration does struggle with the mental health needs of ex servicemen.
Possibly our own services are even worse, though at least our vets lose access to guns. Addiction and homelessness are very common in returned servicemen, as is suicide*.
Elaine Tusk and Barbara Juncker with the big duet:
They need their fantasy and freedom I know them so well
You should read Hugo Rifkind in The Times today...
Populism is inherently post-modern, even if its most ardent practitioners don’t know what “post-modern” means. It holds that if enough people believe a thing, it becomes true. Thus, Brexit must be a good idea because 17 million people voted for it, and Trump must be a safe pair of hands because 63 million voted for him. For the rationalist these things are nonsequiturs, but enough people no longer care. For the populist, there can always be alternative facts, because there are no facts. Not any more. There are only reviews.
Serious question: If I as a religous person didn't belive in sex outside marriage ( and therefore against gay sex) but I don't want any of these things to be illeagal in Britain and except everyones right to equal tratment, was friends with people who are gay and and have sex outside marriage and was civil with most (but prehaps declined to go to a wedding) would that be acceptable to people on here.
Or would I be seen as not integrated?
Out of interest.
I think we're plodding off into the area of bias vs prejudice here. I would scorn anyone who claimed to be perfectly unbiased - it's a very human failing. Prejudice is knowingly acting on one's biases to the detriment of others.
However, I'm leery of using gender or sexual orientation or such as reasons for my own behaviour. I've met several gay people who I couldn't abide, but that was because they were obnoxious or humourless or whatever, nothing to do with who they slept with. Ditto trans folk ( and vice versa - there are people who used to be in my social circle who blank me on the basis of being TG, which I find more hurtful than if they did so on the basis of me being an over-opinionated windbag ).
To return to your question, I'm not entirely sure what 'integrated' means. You'd fit right in with certain (native Welsh) members of my local Conservative club, if that helps.
When I say integrated I mean abiding by cultural norms. So declining to go to a gay wedding for example might be seen by many Britons as not integrated because it is rude not to accept a wedding invitation because of someone's private sexual orientation. It is of course not illegal but it is also not the norm like face veils.
Elaine Tusk and Barbara Juncker with the big duet:
They need their fantasy and freedom I know them so well
You should read Hugo Rifkind in The Times today...
Populism is inherently post-modern, even if its most ardent practitioners don’t know what “post-modern” means. It holds that if enough people believe a thing, it becomes true. Thus, Brexit must be a good idea because 17 million people voted for it, and Trump must be a safe pair of hands because 63 million voted for him. For the rationalist these things are nonsequiturs, but enough people no longer care. For the populist, there can always be alternative facts, because there are no facts. Not any more. There are only reviews.
Is that actually how people think though? I don't think Leaving the EU is a good idea because more people voted for it, I thought it was a good idea on its own merits. Remain winning wouldn't have changed that.
Is that actually how people think though? I don't think Leaving the EU is a good idea because more people voted for it, I thought it was a good idea on its own merits. Remain winning wouldn't have changed that.
It's how Tezza thinks, and every other MP that campaigned for remain but will vote to trigger Article 50.
Is that actually how people think though? I don't think Leaving the EU is a good idea because more people voted for it, I thought it was a good idea on its own merits. Remain winning wouldn't have changed that.
It's how Tezza thinks, and every other MP that campaigned for remain but will vote to trigger Article 50.
See also the converted zealots on PB...
That's not (necessarily) thinking leaving the EU is a good idea, it's thinking democracy is a good idea.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Indeed a very courageous woman. A lot has been said about the personal nature of the attacks on the judges, while this disgraceful piece was largely ignored:
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
She won and at the same time lost because the ruling today requires a short bill and no veto by the devolved adminstrations making the process of leaving much easier
That's not (necessarily) thinking leaving the EU is a good idea, it's thinking democracy is a good idea.
No
We've been round this before.
The UK is a representative, not a direct democracy. If Brexit was verifiably, unequivocally bad, the democratic thing for MPs to do would be vote against.
That's not (necessarily) thinking leaving the EU is a good idea, it's thinking democracy is a good idea.
No
We've been round this before.
The UK is a representative, not a direct democracy. If Brexit was verifiably, unequivocally bad, the democratic thing for MPs to do would be vote against.
Actually, the thing to do would have been to vote against having a referendum
That's not (necessarily) thinking leaving the EU is a good idea, it's thinking democracy is a good idea.
No
We've been round this before.
The UK is a representative, not a direct democracy. If Brexit was verifiably, unequivocally bad, the democratic thing for MPs to do would be vote against.
No. We had a referendum and were told our decision would be respected. It looks like it will be so I'm not getting worked up about the court's decision.
That's not (necessarily) thinking leaving the EU is a good idea, it's thinking democracy is a good idea.
No
We've been round this before.
The UK is a representative, not a direct democracy. If Brexit was verifiably, unequivocally bad, the democratic thing for MPs to do would be vote against.
Bit difficult to understand how constituents who vote for their MP, who then represent their views in the HOC, not being direct democracy
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Indeed a very courageous woman. A lot has been said about the personal nature of the attacks on the judges, while this disgraceful piece was largely ignored:
Nah. Gina Miller is a damnable liar. She claims her suit was all about The Will of Parliament, dig deeper and she's just desperate to stop Brexit. Any way she can. She's williamglenn in a skirt.
Come to think of it, she might ACTUALLY be williamglenn
Also unspeakably condescending and arrogant. Witness her on Marr, telling Nigel Farage he 'should be her biggest fan'.
Merely pointed out what he said and showed him doing the ISIS sign...
Might not have been the reason he killed people, I am open minded
I'm sism?
Yes, Ioints that this be covered up, or at least occulted
Well to go all Confucian on yo 'ass, a people who are scared are easily governable. We have seen that of course with how New Lab pushed through any number of anti-freedom type laws.
Who benefits from minimising the Islamic angle vs who would benefit from a population who is happy for the government to increase its own powers in the name of anti-terrorism?
Good question. Who benefited in Rotherham? Labour. They got a client Pakistani vote and avoided hideous controversy
Who benefits across Europe? I'd say the entire postwar Liberal establishment, which is responsible for mass immigration and multiculturalism, and is fearful of the backlash if these policies are seen to be disastrous (which I think they are)
Indeed they already see a backlash in Wilders and Le Pen, so they close ranks even more
I KNOW all this from my lefty liberal friend who now works for the German BBC. He says they simply suppress stories that might be seen as anti-migrant. They don't run them
And he's a classic Guardian type. Still hates Tories.
That's not (necessarily) thinking leaving the EU is a good idea, it's thinking democracy is a good idea.
No
We've been round this before.
The UK is a representative, not a direct democracy. If Brexit was verifiably, unequivocally bad, the democratic thing for MPs to do would be vote against.
Bit difficult to understand how constituents who vote for their MP, who then represent their views in the HOC, not being direct democracy
Direct democracy would involve the people voting on everything.
Serious question: If I as a religous person didn't belive in sex outside marriage ( and therefore against gay sex)
You could easily reconcile those positions by supporting gay marriage?
Not if my religion says marriage is only between a man and woman.
I think your viewpoint is entirely acceptable. It's what you believe. You are free to believe what you like. You may lose friends or be slightly ostracised by liberal metrosexuals, but then we all do this social arithmetic every day: I long ago realised my pretty wild and bohemian life excluded me from certain jobs or careers (like politics!) , and would offend many others, but that was my choice.
Again, what is not right is seeking to impose your views on others, especially via the non democratic diktat of religion, and religious law, and even more if that religious law is inherently bigoted and hateful, which - sorry - I believe sharia law is, towards women.
You start banging on about sharia, then you cross the line. That's when you should leave the country, and go back to Saudi, as the Dutch prime minister put it today.
We are enlightened western nations. We do freedom and equality.
I agree there can only be one law of the land, all must abide by it. End of, no discussion.
Screaming Eagles will prob refuse to answer, but what are the pink lines?
Key is on right.
That makes NHS the third most important doesn't it?
Yes
#fakenews!!
It means there is a small proportion of the population who are obsessed with it but in general it's not the most frequently mentioned issue. The NHS is. It's the AV winner
Actually, the thing to do would have been to vote against having a referendum
Also no.
There is no harm in having a vote. Any harm only comes if a particular outcome is enacted.
And it strays from the original point which is the outcome of the vote swayed opinions. Not true if there is no vote...
So you are saying it is worthwhile voting to have a referendum that cost millions of pounds of public money, causes division etc etc, in the knowledge that only one result (the status quo) will be respected?
So you are saying it is worthwhile voting to have a referendum that cost millions of pounds of public money, causes division etc etc, in the knowledge that only one result (the status quo) will be respected?
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Indeed a very courageous woman. A lot has been said about the personal nature of the attacks on the judges, while this disgraceful piece was largely ignored:
Nah. Gina Miller is a damnable liar. She claims her suit was all about The Will of Parliament, dig deeper and she's just desperate to stop Brexit. Any way she can. She's williamglenn in a skirt.
Come to think of it, she might ACTUALLY be williamglenn
Screaming Eagles will prob refuse to answer, but what are the pink lines?
Key is on right.
That makes NHS the third most important doesn't it?
Yes
#fakenews!!
It means there is a small proportion of the population who are obsessed with it but in general it's not the most frequently mentioned issue. The NHS is. It's the AV winner
That makes no sense whatsoever!!! The NHS was the only topic mentioned
So you are saying it is worthwhile voting to have a referendum that cost millions of pounds of public money, causes division etc etc, in the knowledge that only one result (the status quo) will be respected?
I didn't say any of that
uh-oh
I have a feeling we are stepping into "Farage will not be in the debates/Monty Hall" territory
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Indeed a very courageous woman. A lot has been said about the personal nature of the attacks on the judges, while this disgraceful piece was largely ignored:
Nah. Gina Miller is a damnable liar. She claims her suit was all about The Will of Parliament, dig deeper and she's just desperate to stop Brexit. Any way she can. She's williamglenn in a skirt.
Come to think of it, she might ACTUALLY be williamglenn
No one elected Gina Miller!
My problem with Gina Miller is not her desire to get the HOC to vote on Brexit but she wants to stop it
Again, the original point was that the vote swayed opinion. That can only be true if there was a vote. If there was a question with only one answer, that too would be unlikely to sway opinion...
Again, the original point was that the vote swayed opinion. That can only be true if there was a vote. If there was a question with only one answer, that too would be unlikely to sway opinion...
Again, the original point was that the vote swayed opinion. That can only be true if there was a vote. If there was a question with only one answer, that too would be unlikely to sway opinion...
OK, I probably arrived too late to the party. I thought the argument was that it was okay that MPs voted for a referendum knowing that they would just reject one of the outcomes. That seemed a bit odd!
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
The dissenting judgement linked to this morning throws up another interesting question that some are discussing elsewhere
277. As the foregoing judgments show, this case is capable of stimulating discussion on a number of legally interesting topics. There are also supplementary questions arising out of the legal positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. But, at some risk of over-simplifying, the main question centres on two very well understood constitutional rules, which in this case apparently point in opposite directions. They are these:
Rule 1 the executive (government) cannot change law made by Act of Parliament, nor the common law;
and Rule 2 the making and unmaking of treaties is a matter of foreign relations within the competence of the government.
278. Nobody questions either of these two rules. Mrs Miller relies on the first. The government relies on the second. The government contends that Rule 2 operates to recognise its power, as the handler of foreign relations, to unmake the European Treaties. Mrs Miller contends that Rule 1 shows that the power to handle foreign relations stops short at the point where UK statute law is changed.
We know now that in the case of leaving the EU, the majority opinion is that Rule 1 takes precedence over Rule 2, but what about future Parliaments and rejoining?
This would seem to suggest that a future executive could sign a treaty rejoining the EU with neither a plebiscite or a vote in Parliament...
We know now that in the case of leaving the EU, the majority opinion is that Rule 1 takes precedence over Rule 2, but what about future Parliaments and rejoining?
This would seem to suggest that a future executive could sign a treaty rejoining the EU with neither a plebiscite or a vote in Parliament...
Elaine Tusk and Barbara Juncker with the big duet:
They need their fantasy and freedom I know them so well
You should read Hugo Rifkind in The Times today...
Populism is inherently post-modern, even if its most ardent practitioners don’t know what “post-modern” means. It holds that if enough people believe a thing, it becomes true. Thus, Brexit must be a good idea because 17 million people voted for it, and Trump must be a safe pair of hands because 63 million voted for him. For the rationalist these things are nonsequiturs, but enough people no longer care. For the populist, there can always be alternative facts, because there are no facts. Not any more. There are only reviews.
For the Hugo Rifkinds of the world, their opinions are facts. It is a fact that mass migration is good. It is a fact that European integration is good. It is a fact multiculturalism is good.
A belated hurrah for Gina Miller and the Supreme court. It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
Certainly hurrah for the Supreme Court.
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
Elaine Tusk and Barbara Juncker with the big duet:
They need their fantasy and freedom I know them so well
You should read Hugo Rifkind in The Times today...
Populism is inherently post-modern, even if its most ardent practitioners don’t know what “post-modern” means. It holds that if enough people believe a thing, it becomes true. Thus, Brexit must be a good idea because 17 million people voted for it, and Trump must be a safe pair of hands because 63 million voted for him. For the rationalist these things are nonsequiturs, but enough people no longer care. For the populist, there can always be alternative facts, because there are no facts. Not any more. There are only reviews.
A bloody silly thing to say, given that the thing and the name for it date back to classical Roman times. The point really troubling Rifkind is the tautologous state of affairs that if 17 or 63 million people have voted for a thing, they have voted for that thing and that is for some reason NOT FAIR.
Comments
The EU could be a very different beast in a few years. I wonder if Scots really want to join this.
Every poll says they don't even want another referendum; they are sick to death of them. 61-39 against an EU related referendum in the most recent relevant Yougov.
Almost a third of 2014 Yes voters do not want the SNP campaigning for independence.
It reads as though they just want Sturgeon to take heed of one particular message: "you asked the question, we gave you an answer, now STFU."
Or would I be seen as not integrated?
Out of interest.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgin-ulhTrNyjaljMJI1P6Yj_gKTRdIXinSTfMC0npMZRNiXO6
(Round numbers):
UK: -£9bn
EU: ±£1bn
It shows that some politicians understand that the grand idea of having people move around freely, whether under FoM or Schengen, raise issues which need addressing.
The concerns about borders is not simply a British issue, no matter how much some might like to make out that the British are uniquely xenophobic/racist/wicked in this regard.
Government borrowing fell by £0.4bn in December to £6.9bn, compared with 2015.
The figures, from the Office for National Statistics, means borrowing for the year is £63.8bn, £10.6bn lower than for the same period a year ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38728920
https://twitter.com/niceninja/status/821587379425153024
However, I'm leery of using gender or sexual orientation or such as reasons for my own behaviour. I've met several gay people who I couldn't abide, but that was because they were obnoxious or humourless or whatever, nothing to do with who they slept with. Ditto trans folk ( and vice versa - there are people who used to be in my social circle who blank me on the basis of being TG, which I find more hurtful than if they did so on the basis of me being an over-opinionated windbag
To return to your question, I'm not entirely sure what 'integrated' means. You'd fit right in with certain (native Welsh) members of my local Conservative club, if that helps.
Some people would call you bigot, for failing to endorse the prevailing opinion.
Red is totalling No 1 AND other key issues if ppl select more than one option.
Seemed to disappear from the News pretty quickly didn't it?
Dodgy source, so could be #fakenews but seems he liked to go by the name of "Aashiq Hammad"
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/fort-lauderdale-shooter-was-aashiq-hammad-on-myspace-recorded-islamic-music
It's a Lib Dem chart. The pink is the most important issue, red is an aggregation of the percent of any mentions of the issue (not only most important).
So actually the NHS is picked as the most important issue by just 10% of respondants.
You mean ISIS is a dangerous, murderous terrorist organisation?
Who'd have thought. Spanish guy (clue = name: Esteban) is ISIS sympathiser. What are you trying to prove here? That ISIS is a nasty organisation? Well newsflash, we knew that. That people hope that a horrible act is not horrible and premeditated but it is? That too. It's an understandable human reaction.
What exactly are you saying here?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/snp/nicola-sturgeon/analysis/82683/analysis-waiting-sturge-o
Might not have been the reason he killed people, I am open minded
Is it the denial by people who hoped against hope it was some Latino nutter? Or do you think there is an establishment policy of minimising/lying about Islamic terrorism?
"Federal authorities in Alaska said Santiago told them prior to the attack that he was hearing voices and that his mind was being controlled by the CIA. Santiago made no such claim during the six-hour interview conducted shortly after the January 6 shooting at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Ferlazzo testified.
ISIS has not claimed responsibility for the attack."
Bearing in mind that this ex soldier served in Iraq, and was handed by the Alaska Police over to the mental health system, I would wait to hear what comes out in court. Has IS penetrated the US Army? or more likely, has the US Army failed once more to address the mental health issues of ex-servicemen.
If that trend held through the remainder of the year the deficit would come in at around £63.5bn.
Debt interest is trending towards an annual £51bn - leaving a primary deficit of 'just' £12.5bn.
Overseas aid? EU contributions?
It is possible and quite common I'm sure for someone with mental health issues to be a supporter of ISIS and for the combination of the two factors to produce an action.
The issue I have with your post is that it could be read as blaming the US Army for failing to provide a duty of care to those with mental health issues. There are of course many, many varieties and manifestations of those with such issues and I'm sure the US Army does much to address them. They can't, however, be held responsible for delayed manifestation or several other flavours.
It's not you, it's me...It's you...
https://twitter.com/talkstough/status/823672350357016579
Who benefits from minimising the Islamic angle vs who would benefit from a population who is happy for the government to increase its own powers in the name of anti-terrorism?
Elaine Tusk and Barbara Juncker with the big duet:
They need their fantasy and freedom
I know them so well
http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/military/critical-need.aspx
Possibly our own services are even worse, though at least our vets lose access to guns. Addiction and homelessness are very common in returned servicemen, as is suicide*.
Populism is inherently post-modern, even if its most ardent practitioners don’t know what “post-modern” means. It holds that if enough people believe a thing, it becomes true. Thus, Brexit must be a good idea because 17 million people voted for it, and Trump must be a safe pair of hands because 63 million voted for him. For the rationalist these things are nonsequiturs, but enough people no longer care. For the populist, there can always be alternative facts, because there are no facts. Not any more. There are only reviews.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/truth-has-gone-the-way-of-the-toaster-review-tkcmwf6sx
@jessicaelgot: Hustings tomorrow to decide who will take on Ukip's Paul Nuttall in what's looking increasingly like a straight fight
It does seem that logic has a place in our governance.
See also the converted zealots on PB...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2108730/who-is-gina-miller-south-american-brexit-vote-made-her-sick/
We've been round this before.
The UK is a representative, not a direct democracy. If Brexit was verifiably, unequivocally bad, the democratic thing for MPs to do would be vote against.
There is no harm in having a vote. Any harm only comes if a particular outcome is enacted.
And it strays from the original point which is the outcome of the vote swayed opinions. Not true if there is no vote...
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/shit-just-got-real
"vote for their MP, who then represent their views"
I have a feeling we are stepping into "Farage will not be in the debates/Monty Hall" territory
Again, the original point was that the vote swayed opinion. That can only be true if there was a vote. If there was a question with only one answer, that too would be unlikely to sway opinion...
Miller is just a sad Remainer desperate to stop Brexit (it made her sick remember) by any means possible and too thick to realise that in the long run she has probably made it more straightforward.
This result is great as it reduces the power of the executive, neuters the threats from the Scots Parliament and puts no specific restrictions on Brexit beyond quite rightly saying it must be started by Parliament. All round a very good day for democracy.
277. As the foregoing judgments show, this case is capable of stimulating discussion on a number of legally interesting topics. There are also supplementary questions arising out of the legal positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. But, at some risk of over-simplifying, the main question centres on two very well understood constitutional rules, which in this case apparently point in opposite directions. They are these:
Rule 1
the executive (government) cannot change law made by Act of Parliament, nor the common law;
and Rule 2
the making and unmaking of treaties is a matter of foreign relations within the competence of the government.
278. Nobody questions either of these two rules. Mrs Miller relies on the first. The government relies on the second. The government contends that Rule 2 operates to recognise its power, as the handler of foreign relations, to unmake the European Treaties. Mrs Miller contends that Rule 1 shows that the power to handle foreign relations stops short at the point where UK statute law is changed.
We know now that in the case of leaving the EU, the majority opinion is that Rule 1 takes precedence over Rule 2, but what about future Parliaments and rejoining?
This would seem to suggest that a future executive could sign a treaty rejoining the EU with neither a plebiscite or a vote in Parliament...
You don't have the same beliefs as me and that's fine.
Apart from that, all good.