To take a specific example I would be surprised if Thomas backs this.
If Thomas won't back Trump it'll be a 9-0 walloping. RBG and the other 3 more liberal justices definitely won't.
That would be my guess. What Trump is wanting to do would seriously undermine the principle of separation of powers which gives the purse strings to the House of Representatives.
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Whilst I don't keep up with everyone's opinions have there been extensive calls on the left against Adam Smith having a grave?
It's in the Canongate cemetary on the Royal Mile. My colleague was looking for it in the 1970s and failing to find it asked the graveyard attendant - "Ah, the trombone player"
His statue on the Royal mile frequently has the adornment of a traffic cone.
I didn't know he had one. Do you mean David Hume's?
Brexit: Macron backs legally binding concessions to Irish backstop
Senior European diplomats said that the government would be given enough in the way of legal assurances to persuade Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, to change his legal advice. He has previously warned that the backstop could be used trap Britain in a customs union. “There will be sufficient changes to allow Mr Cox to give a pass to the agreement,” said a veteran European ambassador, who said France now supported possible new concessions.
I might not be forced to drink boxed wine after all.
Ultimately, we can't be trapped in the Customs Union, if we don't want to be in the customs union. If parliament votes to impose customs charges on goods coming from the EU, or to remove the on goods coming from elsewhere there is nothing the EU can do.
Now, the EU claims to be sincere in finding a technological solution to the Northern Irish border. If that is true, then there are no issues. If it is not, then the EU will have broken their side of the treaty and we would be morally within our rights to withdraw from it.
I don't really see why this is complicated, or controversial.
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Whilst I don't keep up with everyone's opinions have there been extensive calls on the left against Adam Smith having a grave?
It's in the Canongate cemetary on the Royal Mile. My colleague was looking for it in the 1970s and failing to find it asked the graveyard attendant - "Ah, the trombone player"
His statue on the Royal mile frequently has the adornment of a traffic cone.
I didn't know he had one. Do you mean David Hume's?
TBH I think some people are slightly confused about who Karl Marx is...
I know who he is, he is the guy who wrote THIS in 1848:
“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
So, yeah, he is a bit different to "Adam Smith", unless Smith wrote secret tracts advocating mass murder. Did he? I can also see why Marx's pompous, lofty grave might annoy quite a few people, quite a lot, though I really wish they hadn't indulged in this stupid, pointless vandalism, which serves no purpose.
Have you read it in context or just done some quick googling and found a quick snippet to justify your thoughts?
It justifies the actions of the likes of Stalin about as much as Smith justifies the slave trade.
lol. Them's his word. And there are lots more like them. Marx wanted violent revolution. Sorry to be the bearer of such grim news, which apparently comes as a surprise to you.
Them's is his words. The link I gave you was his words combined with the other words he choose to combine them with presumably not for random reasons but deliberately.
Here is just the last paragraph and the very sentence attached to the words you cut out 'The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is'
Why do you think he talks of the violent repression suffered and mentions the word counter revolution?
Is it because he is justifying the state taking charge and enacting violent repression or is it because he is justifying taking a violent counter to that repression?
I wouldn't bet on Gorsush supporting a Presidential power grab either.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the four liberals would vote against the legality of the Executive Order, while there would be a separately written opposition from Roberts and Gorusch.
But.
And, I think this is really important, Trump wants to be stopped on this. This is like abortion, only reversed. Nothing would be better for Trump's electoral chances than the forces of the establishment conspiring to use the courts to thwart the peoples' will.
(Conversely, conservatives should fear the effective repeal of Roe vs Wade. Nothing would increase liberal turnout more than a requirement to go to the ballot boxes for abortion rights.)
Not sure he would fancy a 9-0 though. And I can see the Court being keen to stick together on this to show that they are "above politics".
I wouldn't bet on Gorsush supporting a Presidential power grab either.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the four liberals would vote against the legality of the Executive Order, while there would be a separately written opposition from Roberts and Gorusch.
But.
And, I think this is really important, Trump wants to be stopped on this. This is like abortion, only reversed. Nothing would be better for Trump's electoral chances than the forces of the establishment conspiring to use the courts to thwart the peoples' will.
(Conversely, conservatives should fear the effective repeal of Roe vs Wade. Nothing would increase liberal turnout more than a requirement to go to the ballot boxes for abortion rights.)
Not sure he would fancy a 9-0 though. And I can see the Court being keen to stick together on this to show that they are "above politics".
TBH I think some people are slightly confused about who Karl Marx is...
I know who he is, he is the guy who wrote THIS in 1848:
“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
So, yeah, he is a bit different to "Adam Smith", unless Smith wrote secret tracts advocating mass murder. Did he? I can also see why Marx's pompous, lofty grave might annoy quite a few people, quite a lot, though I really wish they hadn't indulged in this stupid, pointless vandalism, which serves no purpose.
Have you read it in context or just done some quick googling and found a quick snippet to justify your thoughts?
It justifies the actions of the likes of Stalin about as much as Smith justifies the slave trade.
lol. Them's his words. And there are lots more like them. Marx wanted violent revolution. Sorry to be the bearer of such grim news, which apparently comes as a surprise to you.
“We are living in the era of premeditation and the perfect crime. Our criminals are no longer helpless children who could plead love as their excuse. On the contrary, they are adults and the have the perfect alibi: philosophy, which can be used for any purpose - even for transforming murderers into judges.”
I wouldn't bet on Gorsush supporting a Presidential power grab either.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the four liberals would vote against the legality of the Executive Order, while there would be a separately written opposition from Roberts and Gorusch.
But.
And, I think this is really important, Trump wants to be stopped on this. This is like abortion, only reversed. Nothing would be better for Trump's electoral chances than the forces of the establishment conspiring to use the courts to thwart the peoples' will.
(Conversely, conservatives should fear the effective repeal of Roe vs Wade. Nothing would increase liberal turnout more than a requirement to go to the ballot boxes for abortion rights.)
Not sure he would fancy a 9-0 though. And I can see the Court being keen to stick together on this to show that they are "above politics".
I wouldn't bet on Gorsush supporting a Presidential power grab either.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the four liberals would vote against the legality of the Executive Order, while there would be a separately written opposition from Roberts and Gorusch.
But.
And, I think this is really important, Trump wants to be stopped on this. This is like abortion, only reversed. Nothing would be better for Trump's electoral chances than the forces of the establishment conspiring to use the courts to thwart the peoples' will.
(Conversely, conservatives should fear the effective repeal of Roe vs Wade. Nothing would increase liberal turnout more than a requirement to go to the ballot boxes for abortion rights.)
Not sure he would fancy a 9-0 though. And I can see the Court being keen to stick together on this to show that they are "above politics".
What! Even Kavanaugh?
I think he is more likely (ironically) to get support from Judges such as Roberts or the more liberal wing who will be anxious about a precedent which clipped Presidential wings in a way that is probably going to inconvenience future Democratic Presidents than Republicans.
Brexit: Macron backs legally binding concessions to Irish backstop
Senior European diplomats said that the government would be given enough in the way of legal assurances to persuade Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, to change his legal advice. He has previously warned that the backstop could be used trap Britain in a customs union. “There will be sufficient changes to allow Mr Cox to give a pass to the agreement,” said a veteran European ambassador, who said France now supported possible new concessions.
I might not be forced to drink boxed wine after all.
Ultimately, we can't be trapped in the Customs Union, if we don't want to be in the customs union. If parliament votes to impose customs charges on goods coming from the EU, or to remove the on goods coming from elsewhere there is nothing the EU can do.
Now, the EU claims to be sincere in finding a technological solution to the Northern Irish border. If that is true, then there are no issues. If it is not, then the EU will have broken their side of the treaty and we would be morally within our rights to withdraw from it.
I don't really see why this is complicated, or controversial.
Without the practical ability to implement it and get other trade partners to recognise it, it would have about as much effect as parliament voting to revoke Australian independence.
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Whilst I don't keep up with everyone's opinions have there been extensive calls on the left against Adam Smith having a grave?
It's in the Canongate cemetary on the Royal Mile. My colleague was looking for it in the 1970s and failing to find it asked the graveyard attendant - "Ah, the trombone player"
His statue on the Royal mile frequently has the adornment of a traffic cone.
I didn't know he had one. Do you mean David Hume's?
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Quite. I abhor this and any vandalism of London's cemeteries - they are one of its glories. But there was a kind of arrogance in thinking you could have this large and haughty grave, of all graves, right in the middle of the cemetery, and not in the end get some kickback - in the present climate of iconoclasm.
I suspect they will end up having to move it, or shield it with protective plastic/barriers etc.
It does remind you that the evil of communism has murdered multiple times those murdered in the name of the evil of facisism. I wonder whether posters on here who seem relatively proud of having been communists ever reflect on that.
I suspect they think they are as much to blame for those death tolls as you as a capitalist think you are to blame for Nazi German deaths.
Then they are wrong. Communism is evil. It is built on the premise of an excessively powerful state and a disregard for the individual. As is facisism, of course.
You are confusing Communism with Leninism. Read Marx.
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Quite. I abhor this and any vandalism of London's cemeteries - they are one of its glories. But there was a kind of arrogance in thinking you could have this large and haughty grave, of all graves, right in the middle of the cemetery, and not in the end get some kickback - in the present climate of iconoclasm.
I suspect they will end up having to move it, or shield it with protective plastic/barriers etc.
It does remind you that the evil of communism has murdered multiple times those murdered in the name of the evil of facisism. I wonder whether posters on here who seem relatively proud of having been communists ever reflect on that.
I suspect they think they are as much to blame for those death tolls as you as a capitalist think you are to blame for Nazi German deaths.
Then they are wrong. Communism is evil. It is built on the premise of an excessively powerful state and a disregard for the individual. As is facisism, of course.
You are confusing Communism with Leninism. Read Marx.
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Quite. I abhor this and any vandalism of London's cemeteries - they are one of its glories. But there was a kind of arrogance in thinking you could have this large and haughty grave, of all graves, right in the middle of the cemetery, and not in the end get some kickback - in the present climate of iconoclasm.
I suspect they will end up having to move it, or shield it with protective plastic/barriers etc.
It does remind you that the evil of communism has murdered multiple times those murdered in the name of the evil of facisism. I wonder whether posters on here who seem relatively proud of having been communists ever reflect on that.
I suspect they think they are as much to blame for those death tolls as you as a capitalist think you are to blame for Nazi German deaths.
Then they are wrong. Communism is evil. It is built on the premise of an excessively powerful state and a disregard for the individual. As is facisism, of course.
You are confusing Communism with Leninism. Read Marx.
How does Leninism explain Maoism or Pol Pot? It is an evil ideology that puts the individual at the mercy of the state and so it has proven everywhere it has been tried. Marx was a sociopath who regrettably has been given far too much attention.
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Whilst I don't keep up with everyone's opinions have there been extensive calls on the left against Adam Smith having a grave?
It's in the Canongate cemetary on the Royal Mile. My colleague was looking for it in the 1970s and failing to find it asked the graveyard attendant - "Ah, the trombone player"
His statue on the Royal mile frequently has the adornment of a traffic cone.
I didn't know he had one. Do you mean David Hume's?
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Whilst I don't keep up with everyone's opinions have there been extensive calls on the left against Adam Smith having a grave?
It's in the Canongate cemetary on the Royal Mile. My colleague was looking for it in the 1970s and failing to find it asked the graveyard attendant - "Ah, the trombone player"
His statue on the Royal mile frequently has the adornment of a traffic cone.
I didn't know he had one. Do you mean David Hume's?
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Quite. I abhor this and any vandalism of London's cemeteries - they are one of its glories. But there was a kind of arrogance in thinking you could have this large and haughty grave, of all graves, right in the middle of the cemetery, and not in the end get some kickback - in the present climate of iconoclasm.
I suspect they will end up having to move it, or shield it with protective plastic/barriers etc.
It does remind you that the evil of communism has murdered multiple times those murdered in the name of the evil of facisism. I wonder whether posters on here who seem relatively proud of having been communists ever reflect on that.
I suspect they think they are as much to blame for those death tolls as you as a capitalist think you are to blame for Nazi German deaths.
Then they are wrong. Communism is evil. It is built on the premise of an excessively powerful state and a disregard for the individual. As is facisism, of course.
You are confusing Communism with Leninism. Read Marx.
How does Leninism explain Maoism or Pol Pot? It is an evil ideology that puts the individual at the mercy of the state and so it has proven everywhere it has been tried. Marx was a sociopath who regrettably been given far too much attention.
The places it was tried (or were considered communist) generally went from authoritarian government to authoritarian governments. Arguably Russia are moving more towards authoritarianism and in a bad direction right now, is this the fault of its current capitalist system?
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Whilst I don't keep up with everyone's opinions have there been extensive calls on the left against Adam Smith having a grave?
It's in the Canongate cemetary on the Royal Mile. My colleague was looking for it in the 1970s and failing to find it asked the graveyard attendant - "Ah, the trombone player"
His statue on the Royal mile frequently has the adornment of a traffic cone.
I didn't know he had one. Do you mean David Hume's?
I wouldn't bet on Gorsush supporting a Presidential power grab either.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the four liberals would vote against the legality of the Executive Order, while there would be a separately written opposition from Roberts and Gorusch.
But.
And, I think this is really important, Trump wants to be stopped on this. This is like abortion, only reversed. Nothing would be better for Trump's electoral chances than the forces of the establishment conspiring to use the courts to thwart the peoples' will.
(Conversely, conservatives should fear the effective repeal of Roe vs Wade. Nothing would increase liberal turnout more than a requirement to go to the ballot boxes for abortion rights.)
Not sure he would fancy a 9-0 though. And I can see the Court being keen to stick together on this to show that they are "above politics".
What! Even Kavanaugh?
I think he is more likely (ironically) to get support from Judges such as Roberts or the more liberal wing who will be anxious about a precedent which clipped Presidential wings in a way that is probably going to inconvenience future Democratic Presidents than Republicans.
If Sotomayor goes for Trump and Thomas goes against, I'd be completely shocked no matter the overall result.
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Whilst I don't keep up with everyone's opinions have there been extensive calls on the left against Adam Smith having a grave?
It's in the Canongate cemetary on the Royal Mile. My colleague was looking for it in the 1970s and failing to find it asked the graveyard attendant - "Ah, the trombone player"
His statue on the Royal mile frequently has the adornment of a traffic cone.
I didn't know he had one. Do you mean David Hume's?
TBH I think some people are slightly confused about who Karl Marx is...
I kpurpose.
More quotes:
"We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism." Karl Marx, 1850
"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way." Karl Marx, 1853
He was also a bit iffy on, uh, Jews
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. ... What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money… Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general." Karl Marx, 1843
And let's not forget the actual Communist Manifesto:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF ALL EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution." Karl Marx, 1848
lol. That enough reading for you? Good.
TBH the context is pretty much the same as the last one I gave you, as you said to me, thems his words. In reference to those violently oppressing others being the ones to tremble you go a long way from there to being responsible for the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot...
Like I said take your time, maybe do a bit of reading and research if you actually want to know something and look at the quotes in at least the wider context of the sentences they have been ripped out of.
Mr. Urquhart, cheers. I wonder if it's an experimental phase/canary for Ferrari.
At this stage it’s purely about getting journos talking. Mission accomplished, as far as Alfa are concerned. I’d put money on it looking very different by the time it turns up in Melbourne.
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Quite. I abhor this and any vandalism of London's cemeteries - they are one of its glories. But there was a kind of arrogance in thinking you could have this large and haughty grave, of all graves, right in the middle of the cemetery, and not in the end get some kickback - in the present climate of iconoclasm.
I suspect they will end up having to move it, or shield it with protective plastic/barriers etc.
It does remind you that the evil of communism has murdered multiple times those murdered in the name of the evil of facisism. I wonder whether posters on here who seem relatively proud of having been communists ever reflect on that.
I suspect they think they are as much to blame for those death tolls as you as a capitalist think you are to blame for Nazi German deaths.
Then they are wrong. Communism is evil. It is built on the premise of an excessively powerful state and a disregard for the individual. As is facisism, of course.
You are confusing Communism with Leninism. Read Marx.
How does Leninism explain Maoism or Pol Pot? It is an evil ideology that puts the individual at the mercy of the state and so it has proven everywhere it has been tried. Marx was a sociopath who regrettably been given far too much attention.
The places it was tried (or were considered communist) generally went from authoritarian government to authoritarian governments. Arguably Russia are moving more towards authoritarianism and in a bad direction right now, is this the fault of its current capitalist system?
Why were the Eastern Bloc countries so eager to shake off the yoke of Marxism in the late 1980s?
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Quite. I abhor this and any vandalism of London's cemeteries - they are one of its glories. But there was a kind of arrogance in thinking you could have this large and haughty grave, of all graves, right in the middle of the cemetery, and not in the end get some kickback - in the present climate of iconoclasm.
I suspect they will end up having to move it, or shield it with protective plastic/barriers etc.
It does remind you that the evil of communism has murdered multiple times those murdered in the name of the evil of facisism. I wonder whether posters on here who seem relatively proud of having been communists ever reflect on that.
I suspect they think they are as much to blame for those death tolls as you as a capitalist think you are to blame for Nazi German deaths.
Then they are wrong. Communism is evil. It is built on the premise of an excessively powerful state and a disregard for the individual. As is facisism, of course.
You are confusing Communism with Leninism. Read Marx.
How does Leninism explain Maoism or Pol Pot? It is an evil ideology that puts the individual at the mercy of the state and so it has proven everywhere it has been tried. Marx was a sociopath who regrettably been given far too much attention.
The places it was tried (or were considered communist) generally went from authoritarian government to authoritarian governments. Arguably Russia are moving more towards authoritarianism and in a bad direction right now, is this the fault of its current capitalist system?
The trend in Russia is grim but it arises because the essential building blocks of a capitalist state, specifically the rule of law and respect of private property, are so weak. A communist state, almost by definition, is built on the absence of these features.
TBH I think some people are slightly confused about who Karl Marx is...
I know who he is, he is the guy who wrote THIS in 1848:
“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
So, yeah, he is a bit different to "Adam Smith", unless Smith wrote secret tracts advocating mass murder. Did he? I can also see why Marx's pompous, lofty grave might annoy quite a few people, quite a lot, though I really wish they hadn't indulged in this stupid, pointless vandalism, which serves no purpose.
He proposed ten actions among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; abolition of child labour; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank. Many of them are orthodoxy today - "we're all Marxists now".
He was naive about human nature, His philosophy, which was progressive and humane, was totally perverted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all the rest. You can't assign the blame for all their deaths to Marx. It's like assigning the deaths of the Inquisition to Jesus Christ.
I think people used to be able to walk around the west cemetery at one time but now you have to go on a guided tour.
Yes, this is true. I did a tour recently with older daughter and friend. What surprised me was that west cemetery is still very much in use. George Michael and Freddy Mercury are both interred there.
Behind the church at the top of Highgate there was a low wall into the old cemetery. We used to climb over it at night, with bottles of cider and go as deep in as we dared before gulping the cider down as quickly as possible and legging it back. There were always plenty of others in there doing the same. Back then it was totally unkempt and profoundly spooky. The other thing I remember was that the blackberries were huge in September time. And delicious.
TBH I think some people are slightly confused about who Karl Marx is...
I kpurpose.
More quotes:
"We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism." Karl Marx, 1850
"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way." Karl Marx, 1853
He was also a bit iffy on, uh, Jews
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. ... What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money… Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general." Karl Marx, 1843
And let's not forget the actual Communist Manifesto:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF ALL EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution." Karl Marx, 1848
lol. That enough reading for you? Good.
TBH the context is pretty much the same as the last one I gave you, as you said to me, thems his words. In reference to those violently oppressing others being the ones to tremble you go a long way from there to being responsible for the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot...
Like I said take your time, maybe do a bit of reading and research if you actually want to know something and look at the quotes in at least the wider context of the sentences they have been ripped out of.
Quoted "out of context". Point and laugh at TheJezziah.
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Quite. I abhor this and any vandalism of London's cemeteries - they are one of its glories. But there was a kind of arrogance in thinking you could have this large and haughty grave, of all graves, right in the middle of the cemetery, and not in the end get some kickback - in the present climate of iconoclasm.
I suspect they will end up having to move it, or shield it with protective plastic/barriers etc.
It does remind you that the evil of communism has murdered multiple times those murdered in the name of the evil of facisism. I wonder whether posters on here who seem relatively proud of having been communists ever reflect on that.
I suspect they think they are as much to blame for those death tolls as you as a capitalist think you are to blame for Nazi German deaths.
Then they are wrong. Communism is evil. It is built on the premise of an excessively powerful state and a disregard for the individual. As is facisism, of course.
You are confusing Communism with Leninism. Read Marx.
How does Leninism explain Maoism or Pol Pot? It is an evil ideology that puts the individual at the mercy of the state and so it has proven everywhere it has been tried. Marx was a sociopath who regrettably been given far too much attention.
The places it was tried (or were considered communist) generally went from authoritarian government to authoritarian governments. Arguably Russia are moving more towards authoritarianism and in a bad direction right now, is this the fault of its current capitalist system?
Why were the Eastern Bloc countries so eager to shake off the yoke of Marxism in the late 1980s?
There are multiple reasons why the Eastern Europeans didn't want to be ruled by the Soviet Union any more, I'm not sure what that has to do with my post though?
In a non-Brexit related post - I went out drinking with a few colleagues yesterday. Got chatting to one who doesn't come out that often, she's Muslim so that's not a huge surprise. So it turns out she's actually an apostate and she came as an asylum seeker 17 years ago with her family who all converted to Christianity in Pakistan. Apparently they literally got chased out of town when news about their conversion was made public by some local politician.
I wouldn't bet on Gorsush supporting a Presidential power grab either.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the four liberals would vote against the legality of the Executive Order, while there would be a separately written opposition from Roberts and Gorusch.
But.
And, I think this is really important, Trump wants to be stopped on this. This is like abortion, only reversed. Nothing would be better for Trump's electoral chances than the forces of the establishment conspiring to use the courts to thwart the peoples' will.
(Conversely, conservatives should fear the effective repeal of Roe vs Wade. Nothing would increase liberal turnout more than a requirement to go to the ballot boxes for abortion rights.)
Not sure he would fancy a 9-0 though. And I can see the Court being keen to stick together on this to show that they are "above politics".
What! Even Kavanaugh?
I think he is more likely (ironically) to get support from Judges such as Roberts or the more liberal wing who will be anxious about a precedent which clipped Presidential wings in a way that is probably going to inconvenience future Democratic Presidents than Republicans.
If Sotomayor goes for Trump and Thomas goes against, I'd be completely shocked no matter the overall result.
Thomas said this: "The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority."
Does that sound like someone who is going to say, yeah, this President can do what he likes because he is my kind of guy?
But as wrong as it is, it's the logical conclusion of the Rhodes Must Fall nonsense and all the other revisionist nonsense peddled by the hard left. The tactics of the hard left being used against them. Excuse me while I play a sad tune on this, the world's smallest violin.
Quite. I abhor this and any vandalism of London's cemeteries - they are one of its glories. But there was a kind of arrogance in thinking you could have this large and haughty grave, of all graves, right in the middle of the cemetery, and not in the end get some kickback - in the present climate of iconoclasm.
I suspect they will end up having to move it, or shield it with protective plastic/barriers etc.
It does remind you that the evil of communism has murdered multiple times those murdered in the name of the evil of facisism. I wonder whether posters on here who seem relatively proud of having been communists ever reflect on that.
I suspect they think they are as much to blame for those death tolls as you as a capitalist think you are to blame for Nazi German deaths.
Then they are wrong. Communism is evil. It is built on the premise of an excessively powerful state and a disregard for the individual. As is facisism, of course.
You are confusing Communism with Leninism. Read Marx.
How does Leninism explain Maoism or Pol Pot? It is an evil ideology that puts the individual at the mercy of the state and so it has proven everywhere it has been tried. Marx was a sociopath who regrettably has been given far too much attention.
Marx was against state power. Lenin argued that a political elite need to guide the masses to the nirvana of communism. He was followed in that line by Stalin, Mao and others. Marx would be turning in his grave. Come on - do your research. Blaming Marx is just lazy. It's like blaming Jesus for the Crusades.
TBH I think some people are slightly confused about who Karl Marx is...
I kpurpose.
More quotes:
"We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism." Karl Marx, 1850
"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way." Karl Marx, 1853
He w3
And let's not forget the actual Communist Manifesto:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF ALL EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution." Karl Marx, 1848
lol. That enough reading for you? Good.
TBH the context is pretty much the same as the last one I gave you, as you said to me, thems his words. In reference to those violently oppressing others being the ones to tremble you go a long way from there to being responsible for the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot...
Like I said take your time, maybe do a bit of reading and research if you actually want to know something and look at the quotes in at least the wider context of the sentences they have been ripped out of.
FFS. The context about the necessity of violent revolution is the bloody Communist Manifesto. The crucial document of Marxism, along with Das Kapital.
Marx was a smart man, and a hypocrite (he disliked Engels' mistress because she was a prole), he was also a firebrand who wanted serious violence in the streets, as he thought there was no other way to overthrow the elite. His followers, like Lenin and Mao, took him at his word.
Marx failed to understand and foresee that the great western capitalist nations would evolve towards a more equitable, democratic and prosperous state, benefiting all men and women, WITHOUT the need for any epic, violent revolt. So he was wrong, and dangerously wrong.
But you go ahead and worship him. I'm going to the gym.
Who said anything about worship, just hoping for a realistic assessment.
In lighter new I see that Perthshire Tories are campaigning hard agianst the car park tax and trying to convince the Perth & Kinross Council not to introduce it. This will be tough as the council is controlled by
I wouldn't bet on Gorsush supporting a Presidential power grab either.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the four liberals would vote against the legality of the Executive Order, while there would be a separately written opposition from Roberts and Gorusch.
But.
And, I think this is really important, Trump wants to be stopped on this. This is like abortion, only reversed. Nothing would be better for Trump's electoral chances than the forces of the establishment conspiring to use the courts to thwart the peoples' will.
(Conversely, conservatives should fear the effective repeal of Roe vs Wade. Nothing would increase liberal turnout more than a requirement to go to the ballot boxes for abortion rights.)
Not sure he would fancy a 9-0 though. And I can see the Court being keen to stick together on this to show that they are "above politics".
What! Even Kavanaugh?
I think he is more likely (ironically) to get support from Judges such as Roberts or the more liberal wing who will be anxious about a precedent which clipped Presidential wings in a way that is probably going to inconvenience future Democratic Presidents than Republicans.
If Sotomayor goes for Trump and Thomas goes against, I'd be completely shocked no matter the overall result.
Thomas said this: "The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority."
Does that sound like someone who is going to say, yeah, this President can do what he likes because he is my kind of guy?
Thomas argued that the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional despite the constitution specifically allowing it.
I wouldn't bet on Gorsush supporting a Presidential power grab either.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the four liberals would vote against the legality of the Executive Order, while there would be a separately written opposition from Roberts and Gorusch.
But.
And, I think this is really important, Trump wants to be stopped on this. This is like abortion, only reversed. Nothing would be better for Trump's electoral chances than the forces of the establishment conspiring to use the courts to thwart the peoples' will.
(Conversely, conservatives should fear the effective repeal of Roe vs Wade. Nothing would increase liberal turnout more than a requirement to go to the ballot boxes for abortion rights.)
Not sure he would fancy a 9-0 though. And I can see the Court being keen to stick together on this to show that they are "above politics".
What! Even Kavanaugh?
I think he is more likely (ironically) to get support from Judges such as Roberts or the more liberal wing who will be anxious about a precedent which clipped Presidential wings in a way that is probably going to inconvenience future Democratic Presidents than Republicans.
If Sotomayor goes for Trump and Thomas goes against, I'd be completely shocked no matter the overall result.
Thomas said this: "The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority."
Does that sound like someone who is going to say, yeah, this President can do what he likes because he is my kind of guy?
Thomas argued that the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional despite the constitution specifically allowing it.
He will make up whatever shit he wants.
Well not really. He concurred with the majority that the use of 40 year old data was an inappropriate use of the powers given by the Act.
I wouldn't bet on Gorsush supporting a Presidential power grab either.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that the four liberals would vote against the legality of the Executive Order, while there would be a separately written opposition from Roberts and Gorusch.
But.
And, I think this is really important, Trump wants to be stopped on this. This is like abortion, only reversed. Nothing would be better for Trump's electoral chances than the forces of the establishment conspiring to use the courts to thwart the peoples' will.
(Conversely, conservatives should fear the effective repeal of Roe vs Wade. Nothing would increase liberal turnout more than a requirement to go to the ballot boxes for abortion rights.)
Not sure he would fancy a 9-0 though. And I can see the Court being keen to stick together on this to show that they are "above politics".
What! Even Kavanaugh?
I think he is more likely (ironically) to get support from Judges such as Roberts or the more liberal wing who will be anxious about a precedent which clipped Presidential wings in a way that is probably going to inconvenience future Democratic Presidents than Republicans.
If Sotomayor goes for Trump and Thomas goes against, I'd be completely shocked no matter the overall result.
Thomas said this: "The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority."
Does that sound like someone who is going to say, yeah, this President can do what he likes because he is my kind of guy?
Thomas argued that the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional despite the constitution specifically allowing it.
He will make up whatever shit he wants.
I expect all 9 of them know the law well enough to craft a dissent on even the most unanimous of the 9-0 and 0-9 cases.
Mr. Sandpit, ah, fair point. Reminds me of testing a couple of years ago when Sauber put in a very fast time in the quest for a sponsor.
Yep. The only thing that may be of note in testing is unreliability - everyone wants to do as many laps as possible.
Anything else is a combination of running the program, playing games with opponents, needing sponsorship and impressing people. Times are pretty much meaningless in that context.
Also remember that the cars running in testing aren’t scrutineered, so don’t necessarily conform to the rules either.
In lighter new I see that Perthshire Tories are campaigning hard agianst the car park tax and trying to convince the Perth & Kinross Council not to introduce it. This will be tough as the council is controlled by
*checks notes*
the Conservatives.
There's been a Murdo. Apparently loads of Perth & Kinross residents commute to Glasgow & Edinburgh and may have the hated car park tax imposed on them by SNPbad councils, so berating Perth & Kinross voters is OBVIOUSLY the best way to sort out those Glasgow & Edinburgh councils.
Well not really. He concurred with the majority that the use of 40 year old data was an inappropriate use of the powers given by the Act.
Shelby County is easily top 10 all time worst decisions.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
The majority opinion gets an incredible amount of mileage out of 'appropriate'.
Hannan is entirely right. The EU are our adversaries now.
No they are not. They are our trading partners and near neighbours with whom we have a great deal in common and have common interests. We don't agree about everything but we do agree about a lot of things. This sort of inflammatory rubbish is not helpful, constructive or, frankly, completely sane.
Mr. Sandpit, mood music can sometimes be useful too.
Yup. But some teams will want to play up their chances, and others play them down.
The most memorable in recent times was last year, when Mercedes booked both of their drivers for the first day (rather than have one driver each day, as was usual) and did something like 300 laps in a single car, that was on track for over 90% of the session. Oh, and it was consistently the fastest car, running faster than the previous season’s pole time at the track. I imagine that had something of an effect on the morale at Ferrari, even if they didn’t admit it.
Well not really. He concurred with the majority that the use of 40 year old data was an inappropriate use of the powers given by the Act.
Shelby County is easily top 10 all time worst decisions.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
The majority opinion gets an incredible amount of mileage out of 'appropriate'.
I am not saying I agree with it. But I don't agree that Thomas makes up "whatever shit he feels like" either. He consistently resists any attempt to extend federal power. If he supports Trump on this he will indeed be a hypocrite.
Edit, was it not in that case that Ginsberg said that the majority decision was like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you were not getting wet? Superbly vivid.
Really hard to see all these people remaining in the same party.
Certainly I would expect Burt and Soames to both vote for permanent Customs Union if necessary while Hannan and the ERG will continue to push for No Deal
If, and it's a big if, we get a new party, key to its electoral fate will be whether it's seen as Labour but not Corbynite, Conservative but not Pro-/Anti-the EU [ie one blue wing], or a red and blue Purple (but not UKIP) centrist party with soft right and soft left types both joining.
Leadership also matters a lot. With the dire May and Corbyn, there's a potentially great opportunity for a new party that bridges the gap.
That is just weird. The Yellow Vests in Paris seem to have been infiltrated by a bizarre cocktail of hard leftists, hard rightists, and outright Islamists - who share anti-Semitic views? - not at all the stolid provincial movement I saw in Cognac/Bordeaux in December.
I expect support for them to fall away quite quickly now. Macron has survived, though he is significantly weakened and diminished.
Perhaps they were there all along but the more modest elements have dropped away. Even in the first few weeks some of the violence went well beyond the usual French “protesting”.
Hannan is entirely right. The EU are our adversaries now.
No they are not. They are our trading partners and near neighbours with whom we have a great deal in common and have common interests. We don't agree about everything but we do agree about a lot of things. This sort of inflammatory rubbish is not helpful, constructive or, frankly, completely sane.
Name one other trading partner or neighbour trying to subjugate us into accepting their laws and regulations in perpetuity with no unilateral recourse to exit?
The backstop is an unprecedented hostile abomination. We had a right to exit the EU - all of it - giving 2 years notice but may never accept their regulations without their permission? That is the hostile actions of an adversary.
If the EU wants to drop the backstop and negotiate as equals and partners then nothing would make me happier to call them our friends. Until then though ...
That is just weird. The Yellow Vests in Paris seem to have been infiltrated by a bizarre cocktail of hard leftists, hard rightists, and outright Islamists - who share anti-Semitic views? - not at all the stolid provincial movement I saw in Cognac/Bordeaux in December.
I expect support for them to fall away quite quickly now. Macron has survived, though he is significantly weakened and diminished.
Same old story. What began as one woman's petition against petrol tax (a nurse I think), turned into a incoherent protest about the modern world and then got hijacked by the Far Right, SWP-types and so on.
Marx was against state power. Lenin argued that a political elite need to guide the masses to the nirvana of communism. He was followed in that line by Stalin, Mao and others. Marx would be turning in his grave. Come on - do your research. Blaming Marx is just lazy. It's like blaming Jesus for the Crusades.
Yes, and it seems to me a bit daft to try to treat Marx as though he generated a single coherent system of thought anyway, let alone that that system was/is somehow renderable into practice in any of the regimes that have used and abused the bits of his ideas that happened to suit their purposes.
His own thinking transformed massively over his lifetime - there is no single finished Marx, its the bits you choose from the period of his writings you choose - and even then its what you choose to believe he *really meant* that ends up letting you send your sometime comrades off to the gallows for heresy
There seem to be some really powerful tools that pop out of his work that can still be applied to help look at the world today (i think whats happening with old political structures groaning to breaking point trying to respond to Globalism is Marxism 101) - but trying to use some selection of them as religious canon and a template for building and running a state is always going to head the same way as building and running a state based on any other religious text. Its not going to end well.
That is just weird. The Yellow Vests in Paris seem to have been infiltrated by a bizarre cocktail of hard leftists, hard rightists, and outright Islamists - who share anti-Semitic views? - not at all the stolid provincial movement I saw in Cognac/Bordeaux in December.
I expect support for them to fall away quite quickly now. Macron has survived, though he is significantly weakened and diminished.
Yes the Yellow Vests are now increasingly being infiltrated by supporters of Le Pen's National Rally it seems
Hannan is entirely right. The EU are our adversaries now.
No they are not. They are our trading partners and near neighbours with whom we have a great deal in common and have common interests. We don't agree about everything but we do agree about a lot of things. This sort of inflammatory rubbish is not helpful, constructive or, frankly, completely sane.
Name one other trading partner or neighbour trying to subjugate us into accepting their laws and regulations in perpetuity with no unilateral recourse to exit?
The backstop is an unprecedented hostile abomination. We had a right to exit the EU - all of it - giving 2 years notice but may never accept their regulations without their permission? That is the hostile actions of an adversary.
If the EU wants to drop the backstop and negotiate as equals and partners then nothing would make me happier to call them our friends. Until then though ...
You should read some of Robert's links about the use the US make of their trade Tribunals. If we want a deal we have to agree terms. If we don't want a deal we don't have to but there are consequences.
That is just weird. The Yellow Vests in Paris seem to have been infiltrated by a bizarre cocktail of hard leftists, hard rightists, and outright Islamists - who share anti-Semitic views? - not at all the stolid provincial movement I saw in Cognac/Bordeaux in December.
I expect support for them to fall away quite quickly now. Macron has survived, though he is significantly weakened and diminished.
Perhaps they were there all along but the more modest elements have dropped away. Even in the first few weeks some of the violence went well beyond the usual French “protesting”.
My complete uneducated guess would be just that, the more hyped up elements who are still out there would probably be a mixture of the more extreme and more desperate. Not all bad people I'd assume but plenty of idiots among them who now make up a greater proportion of the movement.
Hannan is entirely right. The EU are our adversaries now.
No they are not. They are our trading partners and near neighbours with whom we have a great deal in common and have common interests. We don't agree about everything but we do agree about a lot of things. This sort of inflammatory rubbish is not helpful, constructive or, frankly, completely sane.
Name one other trading partner or neighbour trying to subjugate us into accepting their laws and regulations in perpetuity with no unilateral recourse to exit?
The backstop is an unprecedented hostile abomination. We had a right to exit the EU - all of it - giving 2 years notice but may never accept their regulations without their permission? That is the hostile actions of an adversary.
If the EU wants to drop the backstop and negotiate as equals and partners then nothing would make me happier to call them our friends. Until then though ...
You should read some of Robert's links about the use the US make of their trade Tribunals. If we want a deal we have to agree terms. If we don't want a deal we don't have to but there are consequences.
Yes tribunals are an issue but they are not remotely comparable to the backstop.
Would Canada agree to the backstop obligations with the USA?
Hannan is entirely right. The EU are our adversaries now.
No they are not. They are our trading partners and near neighbours with whom we have a great deal in common and have common interests. We don't agree about everything but we do agree about a lot of things. This sort of inflammatory rubbish is not helpful, constructive or, frankly, completely sane.
Nothing Hannan says there is any worse, in terms of ongoing friendship, than Tusk's fuckwitted, ridiculous and inflammatory "there is a special circle in Hell for Brexiteers" remarks. And its not even in the same dimension of nuttiness as Tusk's stated opinion, before the referendum, that Brexit would "end western political civilisation".
Brexit is an unedifying spectacle, and all sides are doing their bit to make it so.
It was one of the most (if not the most) stupid thing I've heard an EU leader ever say and may yet drive us to No Deal.
Can hardly blame her if she does. Hopefully the other parties in Wavertree would stand aside and campaign for her as an independent.
Her tweet also provoked this brilliant response, which appears to be a Labourite anti-Semite angrily and anti-Semitically attacking a Jewish Labour MP complaining about anti-Semitism in Labour
Labour really are diseased. Their membership is the leftwing equivalent of the Daily Mail's commenters.
Jeez, who are these people? If I were Ms Berger, I’d walk, and do it in the most damaging way possible. Spend a couple of years in the Commons as an Indy, making a speech every day about how racist the Labour Party has become, while raising money and campaigning hard in her constituency for re-election.
Nah. I remember similar polls about the Lib Dems 15 years ago.
When people say "centre party" they assume their views are in the centre because they believe most others share them, so it's support (internationalist, pro immigration, pro EU, pro business and soft Left) would be grossly overestimated to reality.
Hannan is entirely right. The EU are our adversaries now.
No they are not. They are our trading partners and near neighbours with whom we have a great deal in common and have common interests. We don't agree about everything but we do agree about a lot of things. This sort of inflammatory rubbish is not helpful, constructive or, frankly, completely sane.
Nothing Hannan says there is any worse, in terms of ongoing friendship, than Tusk's fuckwitted, ridiculous and inflammatory "there is a special circle in Hell for Brexiteers" remarks. And its not even in the same dimension of nuttiness as Tusk's stated opinion, before the referendum, that Brexit would "end western political civilisation".
Brexit is an unedifying spectacle, and all sides are doing their bit to make it so.
It was one of the most (if not the most) stupid thing I've heard an EU leader ever say and may yet drive us to No Deal.
I will raise you Juncker. May trying to get here deal through The House use the argument it is my deal or no deal and no deal is really bad. Up pops Juncker at a presser and says that in the case of no deal the EU would put in place mini deals to mitigate. ERG immediate come up with managed no deal strategy or clean break strategy and May is sunk in the water.
I thought the EU wanted this WDA to get approved, could have fooled me.
Nah. I remember similar polls about the Lib Dems 15 years ago.
When people say "centre party" they assume their views are in the centre because they believe most others share them, so it's support (internationalist, pro immigration, pro EU, pro business and soft Left) would be grossly overestimated to reality.
That is just weird. The Yellow Vests in Paris seem to have been infiltrated by a bizarre cocktail of hard leftists, hard rightists, and outright Islamists - who share anti-Semitic views? - not at all the stolid provincial movement I saw in Cognac/Bordeaux in December.
I expect support for them to fall away quite quickly now. Macron has survived, though he is significantly weakened and diminished.
Yes the Yellow Vests are now increasingly being infiltrated by supporters of Le Pen's National Rally it seems
But also Islamist radicals, judging by the latest videos, and shouts about Palestine, etc
Having just come back from Israel and the West Bank and Palestinian Authority myself I think you can support the right of Palestinians to have their own state without being an Islamist Radical just as you can support the right of Israel to exist without supporting provocative expansion of Israeli settlements into Palestinian lands.
I'm pretty sure that 59% will have WILDLY different ideas about what a "centre-ground" party means. E.g an enthusiastically pro-EU platform will not be what a lot of people would consider "centre" in the current climate.
That is quite notable: essentially an admission of defeat, by a senior Brexiteer journalist, and endorsed by a leading Brexiteer MP. You may win your £1000... except I think the momentum towards *some* kind of Brexit is now unstoppable. So I still think I will win my grand.
Eyes down.
All it means is that they're not going to get their version of Libertarian Pirate Island (w/thanks EiT) no matter how many tantrums they have.
That is quite notable: essentially an admission of defeat, by a senior Brexiteer journalist, and endorsed by a leading Brexiteer MP. You may win your £1000... except I think the momentum towards *some* kind of Brexit is now unstoppable. So I still think I will win my grand.
Eyes down.
I don't get this desire to "wreck the EU".
That seems barely rational to me.
I'm interested in self-government and challenging the EU to reform by our example, not burning the house down whilst laughing.
Brexit: Macron backs legally binding concessions to Irish backstop
Senior European diplomats said that the government would be given enough in the way of legal assurances to persuade Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, to change his legal advice. He has previously warned that the backstop could be used trap Britain in a customs union. “There will be sufficient changes to allow Mr Cox to give a pass to the agreement,” said a veteran European ambassador, who said France now supported possible new concessions.
I might not be forced to drink boxed wine after all.
Ultimately, we can't be trapped in the Customs Union, if we don't want to be in the customs union. If parliament votes to impose customs charges on goods coming from the EU, or to remove the on goods coming from elsewhere there is nothing the EU can do.
Now, the EU claims to be sincere in finding a technological solution to the Northern Irish border. If that is true, then there are no issues. If it is not, then the EU will have broken their side of the treaty and we would be morally within our rights to withdraw from it.
I don't really see why this is complicated, or controversial.
Nah. I remember similar polls about the Lib Dems 15 years ago.
When people say "centre party" they assume their views are in the centre because they believe most others share them, so it's support (internationalist, pro immigration, pro EU, pro business and soft Left) would be grossly overestimated to reality.
It would be more realistic to the current scenario if you talked about the most likely defectors, so Soubry, Chuka etc., inclusion of Lib Dems (or not maybe 2 different questions possibly), peoples vote policy (which seems main cause of breakaway) and then ask for potential support.
I suspect it wouldn't be 59% anymore before you even get into all the other policies and who the leader is which could put more people off again.
Hannan is entirely right. The EU are our adversaries now.
No they are not. They are our trading partners and near neighbours with whom we have a great deal in common and have common interests. We don't agree about everything but we do agree about a lot of things. This sort of inflammatory rubbish is not helpful, constructive or, frankly, completely sane.
Name one other trading partner or neighbour trying to subjugate us into accepting their laws and regulations in perpetuity with no unilateral recourse to exit?
The backstop is an unprecedented hostile abomination. We had a right to exit the EU - all of it - giving 2 years notice but may never accept their regulations without their permission? That is the hostile actions of an adversary.
If the EU wants to drop the backstop and negotiate as equals and partners then nothing would make me happier to call them our friends. Until then though ...
Lmao ! You seemed to have missed a glaring fact ! The EU and UK are not equals , a market of 450 million versus 65 million .
And seriously what do you think will happen when the UK goes with its begging bowl to Trump ?
Japan also has already said it wants more concessions out of the UK because it’s no longer part of a big block.
Stop whining about the EU and all this hysteria about being subjugated . Start taking responsibility for your vote . The EU will look after it’s own interests , just as the UK would have supported its position if another member had left and the UK was still in.
Comments
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1096815330217857032
Does Britain really want these kind of anti-democractic, purists whackos running the government?
Now, the EU claims to be sincere in finding a technological solution to the Northern Irish border. If that is true, then there are no issues. If it is not, then the EU will have broken their side of the treaty and we would be morally within our rights to withdraw from it.
I don't really see why this is complicated, or controversial.
Here is just the last paragraph and the very sentence attached to the words you cut out 'The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is'
Why do you think he talks of the violent repression suffered and mentions the word counter revolution?
Is it because he is justifying the state taking charge and enacting violent repression or is it because he is justifying taking a violent counter to that repression?
Take your time.
Albert Camus.
When I worked in London I used to walk past Tony Blair's house.
Now, when I visit our office in Manchester I walk past the statue of Engels.
Compare and contrast!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efs3PyR8iBw&t=5s
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1096828277434564610
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/is-emmanuel-macron-about-to-call-theresa-mays-bluff-on-the-brexit-backstop/
https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1096812340199243777
Like I said take your time, maybe do a bit of reading and research if you actually want to know something and look at the quotes in at least the wider context of the sentences they have been ripped out of.
For background read https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/37495/what-did-marx-mean-by-revolutionary-terror
It's worth reading the Communist manifesto (it's only 39 pages) if you want to have an intelligent conversation about Marxism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
He proposed ten actions among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; abolition of child labour; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank. Many of them are orthodoxy today - "we're all Marxists now".
He was naive about human nature, His philosophy, which was progressive and humane, was totally perverted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all the rest. You can't assign the blame for all their deaths to Marx. It's like assigning the deaths of the Inquisition to Jesus Christ.
"There’s no forgiveness in this ‘guilty until proven guilty’ era
Lionel Shriver"
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/theres-no-forgiveness-in-this-guilty-until-proven-guilty-era/
Absolutely mental.
"The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority."
Does that sound like someone who is going to say, yeah, this President can do what he likes because he is my kind of guy?
*checks notes*
the Conservatives.
He will make up whatever shit he wants.
Anything else is a combination of running the program, playing games with opponents, needing sponsorship and impressing people. Times are pretty much meaningless in that context.
Also remember that the cars running in testing aren’t scrutineered, so don’t necessarily conform to the rules either.
Apparently loads of Perth & Kinross residents commute to Glasgow & Edinburgh and may have the hated car park tax imposed on them by SNPbad councils, so berating Perth & Kinross voters is OBVIOUSLY the best way to sort out those Glasgow & Edinburgh councils.
https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/1096809214863990796?s=20
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
The majority opinion gets an incredible amount of mileage out of 'appropriate'.
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1096829326618697728
The most memorable in recent times was last year, when Mercedes booked both of their drivers for the first day (rather than have one driver each day, as was usual) and did something like 300 laps in a single car, that was on track for over 90% of the session. Oh, and it was consistently the fastest car, running faster than the previous season’s pole time at the track. I imagine that had something of an effect on the morale at Ferrari, even if they didn’t admit it.
CON: 37% (-4)
LAB: 37% (+3)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 7% (-)
via @OpiniumResearch, 13 - 15 Feb
Chgs. w/ 01 Feb
Edit, was it not in that case that Ginsberg said that the majority decision was like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you were not getting wet? Superbly vivid.
Edit: Thanks multiple people...
Leadership also matters a lot. With the dire May and Corbyn, there's a potentially great opportunity for a new party that bridges the gap.
The backstop is an unprecedented hostile abomination. We had a right to exit the EU - all of it - giving 2 years notice but may never accept their regulations without their permission? That is the hostile actions of an adversary.
If the EU wants to drop the backstop and negotiate as equals and partners then nothing would make me happier to call them our friends. Until then though ...
Plus ca change and all that...
His own thinking transformed massively over his lifetime - there is no single finished Marx, its the bits you choose from the period of his writings you choose - and even then its what you choose to believe he *really meant* that ends up letting you send your sometime comrades off to the gallows for heresy
There seem to be some really powerful tools that pop out of his work that can still be applied to help look at the world today (i think whats happening with old political structures groaning to breaking point trying to respond to Globalism is Marxism 101) - but trying to use some selection of them as religious canon and a template for building and running a state is always going to head the same way as building and running a state based on any other religious text. Its not going to end well.
There are a few hours to listen to on Open Yale if you have the inclination starting here https://oyc.yale.edu/sociology/socy-151/lecture-9
Would Canada agree to the backstop obligations with the USA?
It must certainly happen before the end of the month.
I understand around a dozen Labour MPs, and a handful of Tories, are going to break away and form some kind of arrangement with the Lib Dems.
I am not sure what the strategy is. I can’t see it affecting Brexit votes.
When people say "centre party" they assume their views are in the centre because they believe most others share them, so it's support (internationalist, pro immigration, pro EU, pro business and soft Left) would be grossly overestimated to reality.
ERG immediate come up with managed no deal strategy or clean break strategy and May is sunk in the water.
I thought the EU wanted this WDA to get approved, could have fooled me.
That seems barely rational to me.
I'm interested in self-government and challenging the EU to reform by our example, not burning the house down whilst laughing.
I suspect it wouldn't be 59% anymore before you even get into all the other policies and who the leader is which could put more people off again.
And seriously what do you think will happen when the UK goes with its begging bowl to Trump ?
Japan also has already said it wants more concessions out of the UK because it’s no longer part of a big block.
Stop whining about the EU and all this hysteria about being subjugated . Start taking responsibility for your vote . The EU will look after it’s own interests , just as the UK would have supported its position if another member had left and the UK was still in.