> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > Or the bit about the 'globalists' wanting war with Russia. This is like the loony letters written in green ink which nutjobs used to send to the newspapers.
Wandering off-topic but mention of green ink reminds me that at junior school, ticks were in red and crosses in green, whereas at senior school it was the other way round. Presumably both these choices had originally been the subject of earnest staff room debate.
But isn't the bit about globalists (formerly known as Hillary) and Russia now mainstream American thought, now the Donald is president? That it's not Russia; it's China. Admittedly this is slightly complicated by most of the neocons and cold warriors still around, since the Trump's own foreign policy entourage consists mainly of Ivanka who's not said much on the subject.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > @glw said: > > There was a time when Alex Jones was a kook but basically harmless. Louis Theroux, and Jon Ronson interviewed him, and whilst Jones had some mad views they weren't particularly offensive or likely to cause harm. The wider conspiracy theorist community was generally like that. > > > > After 9/11 the tone of the conspiracy theorism has become a lot darker, much nastier, accusing victims of terrorism and shootings of being crisis actors, and explicitly political. Now almost anywhere that discusses conspiracy theories is full of Trump supporters, and your run-of-the-mill UFO talk is drowned out with deep-state political rants. What's interesting is that this is not just something that happened organically, but at least in part has been spurred in this direction by state actors who find it useful to direct the attention of an often obsessive group of people for a political aim. > > > > Anyone sensible, and certainly anyone seeking political office, should be steering well clear of Alex Jones. > > Never mind that, just listen to what Farage himself says. This shouldn't be about Alex Jones (of whom hardly anyone in the UK has heard), but Farage. By his own words, he shows himself to be utterly bonkers, completely off the wall. For example: > > <i>Jones: “Why is the left allied with radical Islam?” > > Farage: “Because they hate Christianity. They deny, absolutely, our Judeo-Christian culture, which if you think about it actually are the roots, completely, of our nations and our civilisation. They deny that. They also want to abolish the nation state – they want to get rid of it. They want to replace it with the globalist project, and the European Union is the prototype for the new world order.”</i> > > Or the bit about the 'globalists' wanting war with Russia. This is like the loony letters written in green ink which nutjobs used to send to the newspapers.
Which is not only loony, but self-evidently false. For a start there is a long and noble tradition of the left inspired by Christianity which continues to this day. I'll only bother with the first sentence, or else we'll be here all night.
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > Or the bit about the 'globalists' wanting war with Russia. This is like the loony letters written in green ink which nutjobs used to send to the newspapers. > > Wandering off-topic but mention of green ink reminds me that at junior school, ticks were in red and crosses in green, whereas at senior school it was the other way round. Presumably both these choices had originally been the subject of earnest staff room debate. > > But isn't the bit about globalists (formerly known as Hillary) and Russia now mainstream American thought, now the Donald is president? That it's not Russia; it's China. Admittedly this is slightly complicated by most of the neocons and cold warriors still around, since the Trump's own foreign policy entourage consists mainly of Ivanka who's not said much on the subject.
It's very reasonable to think that China, in the long term, is the main threat to US world hegemony, but off-the-wall bonkers to say that the 'globalists' (which presumably excludes Farage, UK populist, member of the European parliament and US media darling) seek war with Russia.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > > The worst prime minister since Lord North was David Cameron, who contrived by his own efforts to lose Europe shortly after almost losing Scotland. In neither case was he the victim of adverse circumstance: no oil price shock, no foreign invasion, no global financial crisis; just Cameron's own decisions. Theresa May is the worst since Cameron, but that is not saying much as she is also the first. > > 2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
Maggie whose first acts were to raise both inflation and unemployment, and whose defence cuts led to the invasion of the Falklands?
My point is not to debate Thatcher but to point out how nebulous are our judgements of prime ministers. Churchill's greatest fans would not call the 1950s in evidence. Blair pre-Iraq. The Wilson government's 1960s reforms reshaped Britain but the man was never loved or even trusted. Ted Heath by taking us into Europe probably did more than anyone to influence the last 50 years, though the jury is perhaps still out on whether that is a good thing.
Never mind that, just listen to what Farage himself says. This shouldn't be about Alex Jones (of whom hardly anyone in the UK has heard), but Farage.
I'm not defending Farage, he shouldn't be speaking to Jones or be saying such things. That said I do wonder how much of it Farage genuinely believes and how much is him playing up to what his host expects from a guest*. Which is why sensible people should steer clear of Jones, as they won't be having a harmless discussion about Bigfoot it will be full-on right wing paranoid rants you have to deal with.
* If you ever hear Jones interviewed it's quite amazing how otherwise rational people engage with him in talking about stuff that is plainly nuts. He has a similar ability to Sacha Baron Cohen to get people to take him seriously when they ought to be heading to the exit or rebutting what he says.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > > The worst prime minister since Lord North was David Cameron, who contrived by his own efforts to lose Europe shortly after almost losing Scotland. In neither case was he the victim of adverse circumstance: no oil price shock, no foreign invasion, no global financial crisis; just Cameron's own decisions. Theresa May is the worst since Cameron, but that is not saying much as she is also the first. > > 2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
Bonkers. He will be remembered for nothing but screwing up our relations with Europe.
> @williamglenn said: > 2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine. > > Bonkers. He will be remembered for nothing but screwing up our relations with Europe.
Jones: “Why is the left allied with radical Islam?” Farage: “Because they hate Christianity. They deny, absolutely, our Judeo-Christian culture, which if you think about it actually are the roots, completely, of our nations and our civilisation. They deny that. They also want to abolish the nation state – they want to get rid of it. They want to replace it with the globalist project, and the European Union is the prototype for the new world order.”
You get a lot of this kind of debate online:
* Bob: "But why are the Violet party so unpatriotic and murderous?" * Ted: "Well some say they were abused as children, but I think they're just evil" * Alice: "There are far too many pro-Violet people in the media. We must restore balance"
You get it there, you get it here as well. Logic depends on choosing the correct axioms, and axiom-selection is just a matter of choice.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > Quite possibly so. Life ain't fair, is it? > > It will be a fair assessment of Cameron's achievements.
No it won't. His achievements in government speak for themselves. Subsequently voters rejected his advice and chose a different course, and the Conservative Party decided to undo all the good work he had done. More fool them, but it's a bit off blaming the person who was right for the fact that others were wrong.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > > > Quite possibly so. Life ain't fair, is it? > > > > It will be a fair assessment of Cameron's achievements. > > No it won't. His achievements in government speak for themselves. Subsequently voters rejected his advice and chose a different course, and the Conservative Party decided to undo all the good work he had done. More fool them, but it's a bit off blaming the person who was right for the fact that others were wrong.
"Honey, it's a bit off blaming me for the fact that we've lost all our money. I was very consistent in saying that the ball should land on red. It's really the wheel's fault for coming up black, you should be mad at it."
> As a side note my godfather's son in law is the British High Commissioner in Ghana and they had Hunt over with his family and said he was very polite and they got on as he had children roughly the same age as their own but we need someone more decisive now not another Blair and Cameron clone
Hunt (my MP) is indeed pleasant and easy to get on with. I don't have a clear picture of his views, and suspect that most constituents feel much the same.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > > The worst prime minister since Lord North was David Cameron, who contrived by his own efforts to lose Europe shortly after almost losing Scotland. In neither case was he the victim of adverse circumstance: no oil price shock, no foreign invasion, no global financial crisis; just Cameron's own decisions. Theresa May is the worst since Cameron, but that is not saying much as she is also the first. > > 2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
Agreed. I fear that it is closest thing to a Libertarian government that we shall ever see. For shame.
The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun. It is not just the printed copy but their online presence as well. Remember some of these papers called dissenting MPS traitors FFS! They whip people up into a hysteria about Brexit and how the UK must leave even if it is not in our interests to do so anymore....
"our interests" is doing a lot of work there.
Yours possibly, mine too - but evidently they didn't feel it was in their's.
And who are we to tell them they were wrong and don't know their own best interests?
> It will be a fair assessment of Cameron's achievements.
No it won't. His achievements in government speak for themselves. Subsequently voters rejected his advice and chose a different course, and the Conservative Party decided to undo all the good work he had done. More fool them, but it's a bit off blaming the person who was right for the fact that others were wrong.
I agree Cameron was a successful PM - up until he cut & ran after the referendum. Had he stayed to sort out the mess his instructions to the Civil Service had helped create he could have salvaged some of his reputation. As it is, his obituary, however unfairly will be one word - 'Brexit' - just as Blair's will be 'Iraq'.
2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
Bonkers. He will be remembered for nothing but screwing up our relations with Europe.
In so far as he cut & ran that's fair - but the current PM and Parliament will deserve most 'credit' for that.
> 2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
>
> Bonkers. He will be remembered for nothing but screwing up our relations with Europe.
Comments
>
> Or the bit about the 'globalists' wanting war with Russia. This is like the loony letters written in green ink which nutjobs used to send to the newspapers.
Wandering off-topic but mention of green ink reminds me that at junior school, ticks were in red and crosses in green, whereas at senior school it was the other way round. Presumably both these choices had originally been the subject of earnest staff room debate.
But isn't the bit about globalists (formerly known as Hillary) and Russia now mainstream American thought, now the Donald is president? That it's not Russia; it's China. Admittedly this is slightly complicated by most of the neocons and cold warriors still around, since the Trump's own foreign policy entourage consists mainly of Ivanka who's not said much on the subject.
> > @glw said:
> > There was a time when Alex Jones was a kook but basically harmless. Louis Theroux, and Jon Ronson interviewed him, and whilst Jones had some mad views they weren't particularly offensive or likely to cause harm. The wider conspiracy theorist community was generally like that.
> >
> > After 9/11 the tone of the conspiracy theorism has become a lot darker, much nastier, accusing victims of terrorism and shootings of being crisis actors, and explicitly political. Now almost anywhere that discusses conspiracy theories is full of Trump supporters, and your run-of-the-mill UFO talk is drowned out with deep-state political rants. What's interesting is that this is not just something that happened organically, but at least in part has been spurred in this direction by state actors who find it useful to direct the attention of an often obsessive group of people for a political aim.
> >
> > Anyone sensible, and certainly anyone seeking political office, should be steering well clear of Alex Jones.
>
> Never mind that, just listen to what Farage himself says. This shouldn't be about Alex Jones (of whom hardly anyone in the UK has heard), but Farage. By his own words, he shows himself to be utterly bonkers, completely off the wall. For example:
>
> <i>Jones: “Why is the left allied with radical Islam?”
>
> Farage: “Because they hate Christianity. They deny, absolutely, our Judeo-Christian culture, which if you think about it actually are the roots, completely, of our nations and our civilisation. They deny that. They also want to abolish the nation state – they want to get rid of it. They want to replace it with the globalist project, and the European Union is the prototype for the new world order.”</i>
>
> Or the bit about the 'globalists' wanting war with Russia. This is like the loony letters written in green ink which nutjobs used to send to the newspapers.
Which is not only loony, but self-evidently false. For a start there is a long and noble tradition of the left inspired by Christianity which continues to this day. I'll only bother with the first sentence, or else we'll be here all night.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> >
> > Or the bit about the 'globalists' wanting war with Russia. This is like the loony letters written in green ink which nutjobs used to send to the newspapers.
>
> Wandering off-topic but mention of green ink reminds me that at junior school, ticks were in red and crosses in green, whereas at senior school it was the other way round. Presumably both these choices had originally been the subject of earnest staff room debate.
>
> But isn't the bit about globalists (formerly known as Hillary) and Russia now mainstream American thought, now the Donald is president? That it's not Russia; it's China. Admittedly this is slightly complicated by most of the neocons and cold warriors still around, since the Trump's own foreign policy entourage consists mainly of Ivanka who's not said much on the subject.
It's very reasonable to think that China, in the long term, is the main threat to US world hegemony, but off-the-wall bonkers to say that the 'globalists' (which presumably excludes Farage, UK populist, member of the European parliament and US media darling) seek war with Russia.
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> >
> > The worst prime minister since Lord North was David Cameron, who contrived by his own efforts to lose Europe shortly after almost losing Scotland. In neither case was he the victim of adverse circumstance: no oil price shock, no foreign invasion, no global financial crisis; just Cameron's own decisions. Theresa May is the worst since Cameron, but that is not saying much as she is also the first.
>
> 2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
Maggie whose first acts were to raise both inflation and unemployment, and whose defence cuts led to the invasion of the Falklands?
My point is not to debate Thatcher but to point out how nebulous are our judgements of prime ministers. Churchill's greatest fans would not call the 1950s in evidence. Blair pre-Iraq. The Wilson government's 1960s reforms reshaped Britain but the man was never loved or even trusted. Ted Heath by taking us into Europe probably did more than anyone to influence the last 50 years, though the jury is perhaps still out on whether that is a good thing.
* If you ever hear Jones interviewed it's quite amazing how otherwise rational people engage with him in talking about stuff that is plainly nuts. He has a similar ability to Sacha Baron Cohen to get people to take him seriously when they ought to be heading to the exit or rebutting what he says.
I missed Bill De Blasio announcing.
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> >
> > The worst prime minister since Lord North was David Cameron, who contrived by his own efforts to lose Europe shortly after almost losing Scotland. In neither case was he the victim of adverse circumstance: no oil price shock, no foreign invasion, no global financial crisis; just Cameron's own decisions. Theresa May is the worst since Cameron, but that is not saying much as she is also the first.
>
> 2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
Damn, that's bleak (but probably true).
Is there any chance of them relaxing the natural-born citizen requirement?
> 2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
>
> Bonkers. He will be remembered for nothing but screwing up our relations with Europe.
Quite possibly so. Life ain't fair, is it?
* Bob: "But why are the Violet party so unpatriotic and murderous?"
* Ted: "Well some say they were abused as children, but I think they're just evil"
* Alice: "There are far too many pro-Violet people in the media. We must restore balance"
You get it there, you get it here as well. Logic depends on choosing the correct axioms, and axiom-selection is just a matter of choice.
>
> Quite possibly so. Life ain't fair, is it?
It will be a fair assessment of Cameron's achievements.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> >
> > Quite possibly so. Life ain't fair, is it?
>
> It will be a fair assessment of Cameron's achievements.
No it won't. His achievements in government speak for themselves. Subsequently voters rejected his advice and chose a different course, and the Conservative Party decided to undo all the good work he had done. More fool them, but it's a bit off blaming the person who was right for the fact that others were wrong.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > >
> > > Quite possibly so. Life ain't fair, is it?
> >
> > It will be a fair assessment of Cameron's achievements.
>
> No it won't. His achievements in government speak for themselves. Subsequently voters rejected his advice and chose a different course, and the Conservative Party decided to undo all the good work he had done. More fool them, but it's a bit off blaming the person who was right for the fact that others were wrong.
"Honey, it's a bit off blaming me for the fact that we've lost all our money. I was very consistent in saying that the ball should land on red. It's really the wheel's fault for coming up black, you should be mad at it."
> As a side note my godfather's son in law is the British High Commissioner in Ghana and they had Hunt over with his family and said he was very polite and they got on as he had children roughly the same age as their own but we need someone more decisive now not another Blair and Cameron clone
Hunt (my MP) is indeed pleasant and easy to get on with. I don't have a clear picture of his views, and suspect that most constituents feel much the same.
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> >
> > The worst prime minister since Lord North was David Cameron, who contrived by his own efforts to lose Europe shortly after almost losing Scotland. In neither case was he the victim of adverse circumstance: no oil price shock, no foreign invasion, no global financial crisis; just Cameron's own decisions. Theresa May is the worst since Cameron, but that is not saying much as she is also the first.
>
> 2010-2016 was the golden age of government. No-one reading this will see a better government in their lifetime, as I haven't (apart from the very special case of Maggie) in mine.
Agreed. I fear that it is closest thing to a Libertarian government that we shall ever see. For shame.
Yours possibly, mine too - but evidently they didn't feel it was in their's.
And who are we to tell them they were wrong and don't know their own best interests?
In so far as he cut & ran that's fair - but the current PM and Parliament will deserve most 'credit' for that.
> https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/1124380026647003136
> I missed Bill De Blasio announcing.
>
>
>
> I'm feeling left out.
>
> Is there any chance of them relaxing the natural-born citizen requirement?
You’d still have to live here for fourteen years first, even if you did happen ro qualify as a natural-born citizen, e.g. from an American parent.