Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Its a stupid question. It is the equivalent of asking whether you would like your daughter to be hooked on crack or heroin. The only sane answer is to reject both.
Some men will say any rubbish in order to get a f*ck.
He has got that many friends left in this country. I am not sure he can afford to piss off the rugby crowd as well.
He'll always be loved by us England rugby fans for this moment from the 2015 world cup when the Welsh beat England, Prince William will forever be seen as a traitor by the English.
That report is contradictory. He supports a ban, while the RFU are reviewing its use. While that presumably, possible even likely, will support a ban, he has preempted any such review, indeed signaled his support for a particular outcome thus obviating the need for a review.
it is called the Mirza approach. If you have decided the outcome before looking at any evidence, it is so much easier to write the review.
Interesting rumours here that the Leicester cases are particularly in a food processing factory.
Indeed. What are the mistakes that all these food businesses are making?
There isn't a tradition of particularly enthusiastic choral singing amongst meat packing plant workers, is there?
It may be of relevance that - as any well-informed animal rights supporter knows - many abbatoirs respect regulations more in the breach than in the observance.
That report is contradictory. He supports a ban, while the RFU are reviewing its use. While that presumably, possible even likely, will support a ban, he has preempted any such review, indeed signaled his support for a particular outcome thus obviating the need for a review.
it is called the Mirza approach. If you have decided the outcome before looking at any evidence, it is so much easier to write the review.
Well granted that is how most reviews go, but officially they have not made a decision so he is not supporting their position and it shouldn't say he is when he actually supports a particular outcome from the review, not that there should be a review. If the review concludes not to ban it he won't be happy after all.
I feel very dumb indeed - I only just realised what antifa meant.
So you probably had no clue what I meant on PT when I replied to your very important observation - that "blame on both sides does not mean EQUAL blame on both sides" - with a reference to the recent conflicts between the "Fash and the Antifa."
Well I knew what they were about, I just didn't connect it with their name which I assumed referenced something.
Whatever. The point - your point - is what's important. There is no equivalence between the 2 sides in this conflict. The racist hooligan Right are in a different league to the antifa Left. The former are ALL gormless goons whereas only a fraction of the latter are. Anyone who cannot see or acknowledge this has a big big problem and needs to have a stern word with themselves.
Bullshit.
The racist hooligan right and the nihilist violent left are exactly the same. Both seek only to destroy and exult in their victory, during that destruction
To drill down, who was worse, the far right Hitler, or the far left Pol Pot?
Hitler probably killed 25 million in his insane bid to exert racist German supremacy over Europe. But Pol Pot killed between a quarter and a third of his entire nation, for the sole reason that they might be educated, cultured, wore glasses: he saw all of human civilisation and advancement as an enemy.
If Pol Pot had taken over the world (and the radical Maoists wanted to) would it have been a worse world than one run by Hitler? Quite possibly.
Pol Pot killed people for having the wrong brain, Hitler killed people for having the wrong genes
The extremes are mirror images.
I'm talking about the 2 sides in these current street skirmishes not Hitler and Pol Pot! Let's park Hitler vs Pol Pot.
Antifa demos have some bad people. The racist far right is ALL bad people. That's a key difference. Important to recognize this otherwise things go awry and people end up saying silly and reprehensible things.
And we don't want that.
I’m not at all convinced by your reasoning here. Anarchists (and these are anarchists, not anti fascists) are essentially violent criminals who deeply object to being told there are restraints on them.
BLM may have been started with good intentions to respond to real, legitimate and urgent grievances, but it has been hijacked. If you had told me that the footage of Colston being toppled was actually footage of Nazis tearing down a statue of Marx I would have seen no particular reason to disbelieve you.
That report is contradictory. He supports a ban, while the RFU are reviewing its use. While that presumably, possible even likely, will support a ban, he has preempted any such review, indeed signaled his support for a particular outcome thus obviating the need for a review.
He can do what he likes I expect the 70,000 England fans will give him their answer
I feel very dumb indeed - I only just realised what antifa meant.
So you probably had no clue what I meant on PT when I replied to your very important observation - that "blame on both sides does not mean EQUAL blame on both sides" - with a reference to the recent conflicts between the "Fash and the Antifa."
Well I knew what they were about, I just didn't connect it with their name which I assumed referenced something.
Whatever. The point - your point - is what's important. There is no equivalence between the 2 sides in this conflict. The racist hooligan Right are in a different league to the antifa Left. The former are ALL gormless goons whereas only a fraction of the latter are. Anyone who cannot see or acknowledge this has a big big problem and needs to have a stern word with themselves.
Bullshit.
The racist hooligan right and the nihilist violent left are exactly the same. Both seek only to destroy and exult in their victory, during that destruction
To drill down, who was worse, the far right Hitler, or the far left Pol Pot?
Hitler probably killed 25 million in his insane bid to exert racist German supremacy over Europe. But Pol Pot killed between a quarter and a third of his entire nation, for the sole reason that they might be educated, cultured, wore glasses: he saw all of human civilisation and advancement as an enemy.
If Pol Pot had taken over the world (and the radical Maoists wanted to) would it have been a worse world than one run by Hitler? Quite possibly.
Pol Pot killed people for having the wrong brain, Hitler killed people for having the wrong genes
The extremes are mirror images.
I'm talking about the 2 sides in these current street skirmishes not Hitler and Pol Pot! Let's park Hitler vs Pol Pot.
Antifa demos have some bad people. The racist far right is ALL bad people. That's a key difference. Important to recognize this otherwise things go awry and people end up saying silly and reprehensible things.
And we don't want that.
I’m not at all convinced by your reasoning here. Anarchists (and these are anarchists, not anti fascists) are essentially violent criminals who deeply object to being told there are restraints on them.
BLM may have been started with good intentions to respond to real, legitimate and urgent grievances, but it has been hijacked. If you had told me that the footage of Colston being toppled was actually footage of Nazis tearing down a statue of Marx I would have seen no particular reason to disbelieve you.
Sorry but this is totally false, this is one of BLM's cofounders in her own words.
Interesting rumours here that the Leicester cases are particularly in a food processing factory.
Indeed. What are the mistakes that all these food businesses are making?
There isn't a tradition of particularly enthusiastic choral singing amongst meat packing plant workers, is there?
Noise, so speaking loudly, low paid workers, often immigrants in overcrowded accommodation, cool moist surfaces, and social distancing problematic.
Ah, so a bit of stupid behaviour but mostly the product of cheap imported labour and crap conditions.
People will have to get used to paying more for food if we're going to deal effectively with those kinds of issues. That'll go down like a cup of cold sick.
Trump, who has been loath to appear publicly in a mask, said he has no intention of wearing a mask at the rally.
'I don't feel that I'm in danger,' he said. 'I've met a lot, a lot of people, and so far here I sit.'
(Daily Mail).
Maybe he should talk to Boris?
Maybe he should grow a brain cell.
His previous reason was that he'd feel uncomfortable wearing a mask as he met with "presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings (and) queens" while "sitting in the Oval Office, behind that beautiful Resolute Desk".
Someone might explain to him that masks aren't only to protect the wearer.
"Elihu Yale (5 April 1649 – 8 July 1721) was an American born British merchant, slave trader, President of the East India Company settlement in Fort St. George, at Madras, and a benefactor of the Collegiate School in the Colony of Connecticut, which in 1718 was renamed Yale College in his honour"
"The records of this period mention a flourishing slave trade in Madras, a trade in which Yale participated and from which he profited. He enforced a law that at least ten slaves should be carried on every ship bound for Europe. In his capacity as judge he also on several occasions sentenced so-called "black criminals" to whipping and enslavement. When the demand began to increase rapidly, the English merchants even began to kidnap young children and deport them to distant parts of the world, very much against their will"
"Yale was also notorious for arresting and trying Indians on his own private authority, including the hanging of a stable boy who had absconded with a Company horse"
I genuinely don't see how Yale can keep its name, in the present climate
I feel very dumb indeed - I only just realised what antifa meant.
So you probably had no clue what I meant on PT when I replied to your very important observation - that "blame on both sides does not mean EQUAL blame on both sides" - with a reference to the recent conflicts between the "Fash and the Antifa."
Well I knew what they were about, I just didn't connect it with their name which I assumed referenced something.
Whatever. The point - your point - is what's important. There is no equivalence between the 2 sides in this conflict. The racist hooligan Right are in a different league to the antifa Left. The former are ALL gormless goons whereas only a fraction of the latter are. Anyone who cannot see or acknowledge this has a big big problem and needs to have a stern word with themselves.
Bullshit.
The racist hooligan right and the nihilist violent left are exactly the same. Both seek only to destroy and exult in their victory, during that destruction
To drill down, who was worse, the far right Hitler, or the far left Pol Pot?
Hitler probably killed 25 million in his insane bid to exert racist German supremacy over Europe. But Pol Pot killed between a quarter and a third of his entire nation, for the sole reason that they might be educated, cultured, wore glasses: he saw all of human civilisation and advancement as an enemy.
If Pol Pot had taken over the world (and the radical Maoists wanted to) would it have been a worse world than one run by Hitler? Quite possibly.
Pol Pot killed people for having the wrong brain, Hitler killed people for having the wrong genes
The extremes are mirror images.
I'm talking about the 2 sides in these current street skirmishes not Hitler and Pol Pot! Let's park Hitler vs Pol Pot.
Antifa demos have some bad people. The racist far right is ALL bad people. That's a key difference. Important to recognize this otherwise things go awry and people end up saying silly and reprehensible things.
And we don't want that.
I’m not at all convinced by your reasoning here. Anarchists (and these are anarchists, not anti fascists) are essentially violent criminals who deeply object to being told there are restraints on them.
BLM may have been started with good intentions to respond to real, legitimate and urgent grievances, but it has been hijacked. If you had told me that the footage of Colston being toppled was actually footage of Nazis tearing down a statue of Marx I would have seen no particular reason to disbelieve you.
I used the word ‘may have been’ not ‘was’ precisely because I know very little about its origins, so I didn’t want to make a claim that could be wrong.
If it is simply another anarchist group seizing on a legitimate cause to further its highly sinister aims, like Extinction Rebellion, it can and should be dismissed.
"Elihu Yale (5 April 1649 – 8 July 1721) was an American born British merchant, slave trader, President of the East India Company settlement in Fort St. George, at Madras, and a benefactor of the Collegiate School in the Colony of Connecticut, which in 1718 was renamed Yale College in his honour"
"The records of this period mention a flourishing slave trade in Madras, a trade in which Yale participated and from which he profited. He enforced a law that at least ten slaves should be carried on every ship bound for Europe. In his capacity as judge he also on several occasions sentenced so-called "black criminals" to whipping and enslavement. When the demand began to increase rapidly, the English merchants even began to kidnap young children and deport them to distant parts of the world, very much against their will"
"Yale was also notorious for arresting and trying Indians on his own private authority, including the hanging of a stable boy who had absconded with a Company horse"
I genuinely don't see how Yale can keep its name, in the present climate
Easy, create 2 new states. Give DC statehood, and split CA into two, making a new state out of the republican mountainous/rural areas. Leaves the Senate balanced as currently and gives the most under-represented state, CA, better representation in the Senate.
Surely BLM will go actually apeshit if a state is named after Jefferson?
You could arguably dispense with the second half of that sentence to arrive at the essential truth.
If that tweet someone re-posted on here earlier this afternoon is accurate, then some of them pulled down a statue of Grant (the vanquisher of the Confederate armies, and noted for his sympathetic policy stances towards the freed slaves as President.) That's not a rational act of political demonstration. They just want to smash stuff up.
In another place and time they'd be packed off to the countryside for a couple of years to learn from the peasants.
Grant apparently owned one slave for about a year in the late 1850s. The decision to consign him to the unclean of history presumably results from the fact that the poor individual concerned - who was given to Grant by his father-in-law, not deliberately bought - wasn't freed by Grant immediately.
And thus, his central role in the destruction of slavery, the promotion of pro-black policies after the Civil War, suppression of the KKK and so on is entirely negated and rendered irrelevant.
Have they gone after Lincoln as well yet? I'm quite certain that he at least never owned a slave, but he must've done something to upset modern sensibilities at some point?
Lincoln’s views on race were pretty Darwinian.
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Wasn't there a theory that the likes of Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens kept their true beliefs hidden and were incrementalists.
They knew they'd never get things like the abolition of slavery done if they are also talked about equality for the races.
Yes there is.
It’s bullshit.
Lincoln believed non-whites were inferior. It’s just his modern admirers can’t get their heads round the fact that in that time you could be as racist as hell and an anti-slavery activist.
Certainly regarding Lincoln but I think that is unfair as far as Stevens goes. He was quite open in wanting afar more radical change with blacks given the same voting and other rights as whites. He was also rare in wanting to stop the persecution of the Native Americans.
Stevens to my mind is one of the unreservedly good guys of the Civil War era.
Appropriate for a group that are now tilting mostly at windmills.
Not sure if it has been reported on here yet but the latest idiocy from the mindless morons is them tearing down the statue in San Francisco of Ulysses S Grant.
That would be the Grant that led the Union forces to victory against the slave owning Confederates in the Civil War and then as President went on to lead campaigns against the Klu Klux Clan which ended up with many of them in jail and the clan broken for decades, created equal rights for African Americans to sit on Juries and serve in Federal agencies and passed a whole raft of laws to improve and protect black equality and lives.
Why are these people so fundamentally stupid?
They're not stupid, they're just very very badly educated at shite universities which are too scared of triggering them to give them the raw red meat of real history, and proper debate and argument
They also spend their lives in social media bubbles, agreeing with other, a kind of auto-brainwashing. They also hype each other up, into the perfect angry mob,
They are young Khmer Rouge cadres with smartphones and "degrees"
The adults are just as weak.
Someone brave, rational and determined has to have the bollocks to endure the hounds of hell and publicly criticise them, and the actions of universities, corporations and media broadcasters that acquiesce in it and demand a stop to it. They then also have to make a counter-argument as to why all these monuments and statues are important.
A newspaper article ain't enough. They have to go on the airwaves and the streets night and day and take that case to them.
Is there someone (ANYONE?) out there willing to do that?
Well, not you or me, as we are anonymous on social media!
That's the problem, We are all too scared because you really DO risk your career, livelihood and public respect, and maybe your entire future, if you put your head above the parapet
Look what has happened to J K Rowling. She's the most famous author in the world, a multi-billionaire, much beloved around the globe, with millions of fans (and she's centre-left!) and she comes out with fairly unremarkable arguments about trans rights and SHE is nearly cancelled.
If they can do that to Rowling, no one is safe.
It will take a politician with balls of hardened tungsten to turn this war around. i don't see any candidates. More likely is a backlash in ordinary public opinion, expressed by voters, sweeping away the madness. One day.
During Keir Starmer's second term.
Actually, if Keir did a Nixon went to China on this I might vote Labour for the first time in my life.
Shocked myself writing that but perhaps only someone from the centre-left can defeat this?
I view it as so important that, if they can, they'd get my vote - on loan.
Good God, the Liberals used to hold B'ham Ladywood.
It was won in a by-election a couple of years earlier. How Wallace Lawler got himself elected as a Liberal was a matter of surprise in some quarters.
He was elected in June 1969 and was widely expected to hold the seat in 1970.The Birmingham Ladywood of that time was a very small constituency indeed.
@eadric you’re bleating on about the “culture war” except for the past however many years you’ve been egging it on from the other side. You’re just as bad.
Appropriate for a group that are now tilting mostly at windmills.
Not sure if it has been reported on here yet but the latest idiocy from the mindless morons is them tearing down the statue in San Francisco of Ulysses S Grant.
That would be the Grant that led the Union forces to victory against the slave owning Confederates in the Civil War and then as President went on to lead campaigns against the Klu Klux Clan which ended up with many of them in jail and the clan broken for decades, created equal rights for African Americans to sit on Juries and serve in Federal agencies and passed a whole raft of laws to improve and protect black equality and lives.
Why are these people so fundamentally stupid?
They're not stupid, they're just very very badly educated at shite universities which are too scared of triggering them to give them the raw red meat of real history, and proper debate and argument
They also spend their lives in social media bubbles, agreeing with other, a kind of auto-brainwashing. They also hype each other up, into the perfect angry mob,
They are young Khmer Rouge cadres with smartphones and "degrees"
The adults are just as weak.
Someone brave, rational and determined has to have the bollocks to endure the hounds of hell and publicly criticise them, and the actions of universities, corporations and media broadcasters that acquiesce in it and demand a stop to it. They then also have to make a counter-argument as to why all these monuments and statues are important.
A newspaper article ain't enough. They have to go on the airwaves and the streets night and day and take that case to them.
Is there someone (ANYONE?) out there willing to do that?
Well, not you or me, as we are anonymous on social media!
That's the problem, We are all too scared because you really DO risk your career, livelihood and public respect, and maybe your entire future, if you put your head above the parapet
Look what has happened to J K Rowling. She's the most famous author in the world, a multi-billionaire, much beloved around the globe, with millions of fans (and she's centre-left!) and she comes out with fairly unremarkable arguments about trans rights and SHE is nearly cancelled.
If they can do that to Rowling, no one is safe.
It will take a politician with balls of hardened tungsten to turn this war around. i don't see any candidates. More likely is a backlash in ordinary public opinion, expressed by voters, sweeping away the madness. One day.
During Keir Starmer's second term.
Actually, if Keir did a Nixon went to China on this I might vote Labour for the first time in my life.
Shocked myself writing that but perhaps only someone from the centre-left can defeat this?
I view it as so important that, if they can, they'd get my vote - on loan.
I actually don't think publicly calling this movement out is the way to go - not at the moment. This isn't a fashion trend over the past few years, it is a very purposeful project that has a very strong presence in public life in this country. And it has been going for years, if not decades. Look up the Common Purpose programme. It will require equal patience and quiet determination to destroy it and all its works.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Some men will say any rubbish in order to get a f*ck.
He has got that many friends left in this country. I am not sure he can afford to piss off the rugby crowd as well.
He'll always be loved by us England rugby fans for this moment from the 2015 world cup when the Welsh beat England, Prince William will forever be seen as a traitor by the English.
Prince William will be Prince of Wales before he becomes King of England, Harry is patron of the English RFU.
The monarch is Head of State in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and 16 nations in total. They are not just Head of State of England
I feel very dumb indeed - I only just realised what antifa meant.
So you probably had no clue what I meant on PT when I replied to your very important observation - that "blame on both sides does not mean EQUAL blame on both sides" - with a reference to the recent conflicts between the "Fash and the Antifa."
Well I knew what they were about, I just didn't connect it with their name which I assumed referenced something.
Whatever. The point - your point - is what's important. There is no equivalence between the 2 sides in this conflict. The racist hooligan Right are in a different league to the antifa Left. The former are ALL gormless goons whereas only a fraction of the latter are. Anyone who cannot see or acknowledge this needs to have a stern word with themselves.
Yes completely right
Marxists like the idiots in antifa have culled over 100 million supporting your poisonous ideology
Fascists killed 10 million supporting their poisonous ideology
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Its a stupid question. It is the equivalent of asking whether you would like your daughter to be hooked on crack or heroin. The only sane answer is to reject both.
No it's a very good question. It forces you to weigh up 2 things.
I still can't excited about statues or about the imminent racial cultural war which is going to tear down civilisation.
I don't know what slightly bores me more - those who are determined to view the fall of every statue as a blow against "western" or "liberal" values and those whose either total ignorance of or complete distorted misunderstanding of history leads them to believe there's huge symbolism in pulling down a statue.
As for the US, Trump's advisers will be aware 70% of those who vote are White and Trump won the White vote by 20 points last time. If Biden has cut that to eight points, Trump is in a lot of trouble.
On a slightly related, while I don't doubt Johnson will say all the right things and superficially harmony will reign if Biden wins in November, I just wonder if, as happened when Clinton won in 1992, there will be a new chill in Anglo-American relations, a helpful thing (not) if we are trying to agree a comprehensive trade deal with Washington.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
the hammer and sickle though I would not let either in but that would offend me most it killed ten times more and brought poverty to billions
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
The other relevant factor that I think helps to explain why Washington DC hasn't been considered worthy of having voting representation in Congress is that the majority of its population is Black. I believe that DC does have a member of Congress but they can't vote - when we lived there it was Eleanor Holmes Norton IIRC who was excellent. It's a fantastic city with some beautiful neighbourhoods. It's an absolute disgrace that its population is disenfranchised.
Isn't it more to do with the fact it would add two Democratic senators to the senate rather than race?
Unfortunately, with blacks overwhelmingly voting Democrat, you can't split the two.
Virtually everything in America has a racial component, to an extent baffling to us, though we're starting to see glimpses of it here.
Following the Civil War it was the Democrats who were the party of the South and strongly anti equality. The KKK was largely a Democrat organisation. At that time it was the Republicans who were the party of civil rights and equality as well as general liberalisation.
It is an interesting question about when it all changed. Not one I know the answer to. Does anyone on here know when the transformation happened?
The Civil Rights Act in the 1960.
LBJ said he had cost the Democrats the South for a generation.
A lot of hard right of the GOP are former Dems who switched sides around that time.
Wow I hadn't realised it was that recent (relatively as I know I am showing my age here thinking the 60s is recent)
Outside the South the Democrats had already become the more liberal - less conservative party - stretching back to at least FDR.Bluecollar workers generally voted Democrat.
Good God, the Liberals used to hold B'ham Ladywood.
It was won in a by-election a couple of years earlier. How Wallace Lawler got himself elected as a Liberal was a matter of surprise in some quarters.
He was elected in June 1969 and was widely expected to hold the seat in 1970.The Birmingham Ladywood of that time was a very small constituency indeed.
Wallace Lawler was one of the first of the "community politics" activists. He was almost single-handedly responsible for the revival of Liberal politics in Birmingham from the time he got onto the City Council in 1962.
His activism, based on community-based leaflets, petitions and local campaigning, worked brilliantly in Ladywood and, helped by finishing second in 1966 and Labour unpopularity nationally, helped him win the seat.
It wasn't just a tragedy he lost the seat so narrowly in 1970 but he died just a couple of years later.
Appropriate for a group that are now tilting mostly at windmills.
Not sure if it has been reported on here yet but the latest idiocy from the mindless morons is them tearing down the statue in San Francisco of Ulysses S Grant.
That would be the Grant that led the Union forces to victory against the slave owning Confederates in the Civil War and then as President went on to lead campaigns against the Klu Klux Clan which ended up with many of them in jail and the clan broken for decades, created equal rights for African Americans to sit on Juries and serve in Federal agencies and passed a whole raft of laws to improve and protect black equality and lives.
Why are these people so fundamentally stupid?
They're not stupid, they're just very very badly educated at shite universities which are too scared of triggering them to give them the raw red meat of real history, and proper debate and argument
They also spend their lives in social media bubbles, agreeing with other, a kind of
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
Mr. Hammer and Sickle at least has a future writing columns supporting, chairing inquiries appointed by and advising the Conservative Party.
I feel very dumb indeed - I only just realised what antifa meant.
So you probably had no clue what I meant on PT when I replied to your very important observation - that "blame on both sides does not mean EQUAL blame on both sides" - with a reference to the recent conflicts between the "Fash and the Antifa."
Well I knew what they were about, I just didn't connect it with their name which I assumed referenced something.
Whatever. The point - your point - is what's important. There is no equivalence between the 2 sides in this conflict. The racist hooligan Right are in a different league to the antifa Left. The former are ALL gormless goons whereas only a fraction of the latter are. Anyone who cannot see or acknowledge this has a big big problem and needs to have a stern word with themselves.
Bullshit.
The racist hooligan right and the nihilist violent left are exactly the same. Both seek only to destroy and exult in their victory, during that destruction
To drill down, who was worse, the far right Hitler, or the far left Pol Pot?
Hitler probably killed 25 million in his insane bid to exert racist German supremacy over Europe. But Pol Pot killed between a quarter and a third of his entire nation, for the sole reason that they might be educated, cultured, wore glasses: he saw all of human civilisation and advancement as an enemy.
If Pol Pot had taken over the world (and the radical Maoists wanted to) would it have been a worse world than one run by Hitler? Quite possibly.
Pol Pot killed people for having the wrong brain, Hitler killed people for having the wrong genes
The extremes are mirror images.
I'm talking about the 2 sides in these current street skirmishes not Hitler and Pol Pot! Let's park Hitler vs Pol Pot.
Antifa demos have some bad people. The racist far right is ALL bad people. That's a key difference. Important to recognize this otherwise things go awry and people end up saying silly and reprehensible things.
And we don't want that.
I’m not at all convinced by your reasoning here. Anarchists (and these are anarchists, not anti fascists) are essentially violent criminals who deeply object to being told there are restraints on them.
BLM may have been started with good intentions to respond to real, legitimate and urgent grievances, but it has been hijacked. If you had told me that the footage of Colston being toppled was actually footage of Nazis tearing down a statue of Marx I would have seen no particular reason to disbelieve you.
I used the word ‘may have been’ not ‘was’ precisely because I know very little about its origins, so I didn’t want to make a claim that could be wrong.
If it is simply another anarchist group seizing on a legitimate cause to further its highly sinister aims, like Extinction Rebellion, it can and should be dismissed.
Fair enough, just see so often comments infantilising the hard left as if when anything bad happens the reflex is they didn't mean it.
It's why you get the comments like "Oh it's few bad apples", "They obviously don't know who they're pulling down statues of"
They really do mean what they are doing, and have from the beginning.
The other relevant factor that I think helps to explain why Washington DC hasn't been considered worthy of having voting representation in Congress is that the majority of its population is Black. I believe that DC does have a member of Congress but they can't vote - when we lived there it was Eleanor Holmes Norton IIRC who was excellent. It's a fantastic city with some beautiful neighbourhoods. It's an absolute disgrace that its population is disenfranchised.
Isn't it more to do with the fact it would add two Democratic senators to the senate rather than race?
Unfortunately, with blacks overwhelmingly voting Democrat, you can't split the two.
Virtually everything in America has a racial component, to an extent baffling to us, though we're starting to see glimpses of it here.
Following the Civil War it was the Democrats who were the party of the South and strongly anti equality. The KKK was largely a Democrat organisation. At that time it was the Republicans who were the party of civil rights and equality as well as general liberalisation.
It is an interesting question about when it all changed. Not one I know the answer to. Does anyone on here know when the transformation happened?
The Civil Rights Act in the 1960.
LBJ said he had cost the Democrats the South for a generation.
A lot of hard right of the GOP are former Dems who switched sides around that time.
Wow I hadn't realised it was that recent (relatively as I know I am showing my age here thinking the 60s is recent)
Outside the South the Democrats had already become the more liberal - less conservative party - stretching back to at least FDR.Bluecollar workers generally voted Democrat.
Yet in 2016 the Republicans did best with skilled working class voters go the first time under Trump, just as the Tories did under Boris in 2019
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
But that’s a false premise, Kinabalu. Because it wrongly presupposes that you couldn’t be equally freaked out.
(In this particular case, of course, we all know the actual answer the poster would give. But that’s not the point.)
The other relevant factor that I think helps to explain why Washington DC hasn't been considered worthy of having voting representation in Congress is that the majority of its population is Black. I believe that DC does have a member of Congress but they can't vote - when we lived there it was Eleanor Holmes Norton IIRC who was excellent. It's a fantastic city with some beautiful neighbourhoods. It's an absolute disgrace that its population is disenfranchised.
Isn't it more to do with the fact it would add two Democratic senators to the senate rather than race?
Unfortunately, with blacks overwhelmingly voting Democrat, you can't split the two.
Virtually everything in America has a racial component, to an extent baffling to us, though we're starting to see glimpses of it here.
Following the Civil War it was the Democrats who were the party of the South and strongly anti equality. The KKK was largely a Democrat organisation. At that time it was the Republicans who were the party of civil rights and equality as well as general liberalisation.
It is an interesting question about when it all changed. Not one I know the answer to. Does anyone on here know when the transformation happened?
The first crack was Truman, who was shocked when he discovered the extent and impact of Jim Crow and stood in 1948 on a desegregationist platform, opposed by J Strom Thurmond as a ‘States’ Rights’ Democrat (in a very conscious echo of the Confederacy). Thurmond won four of the ex-Confederate states and polled double-digits in most of the others.
There was a further rupture in 1968, when Democratic Governor George Wallace (Alabama) again stood on a segregationist platform in protest at Johnson and Humphrey’s Civil Rights agenda, which tipped the south away from Humphrey and possibly cost him the election (his 46 votes, plus splitting the Democratic vote in five other states, could have been crucial).
Following this election, Nixon developed the ‘Southern Strategy’ based on law and order, tradition, religion etc (stop laughing at the back) with the aim of luring the disaffected Southern whites to himself. This bore fruit when he swept the south in 1972.
Since then, although Carter, Clinton and Obama won odd states there, the South has been solidly Republican. Of course, demographic changes as the whites become a minority may well change it back.
The change and how solid it has become may be an unhappy parallel for Labour as they survey their collapse in the North...
I still can't excited about statues or about the imminent racial cultural war which is going to tear down civilisation.
I don't know what slightly bores me more - those who are determined to view the fall of every statue as a blow against "western" or "liberal" values and those whose either total ignorance of or complete distorted misunderstanding of history leads them to believe there's huge symbolism in pulling down a statue.
As for the US, Trump's advisers will be aware 70% of those who vote are White and Trump won the White vote by 20 points last time. If Biden has cut that to eight points, Trump is in a lot of trouble.
On a slightly related, while I don't doubt Johnson will say all the right things and superficially harmony will reign if Biden wins in November, I just wonder if, as happened when Clinton won in 1992, there will be a new chill in Anglo-American relations, a helpful thing (not) if we are trying to agree a comprehensive trade deal with Washington.
Democrat Presidents since the end of the Cold War tend to favour Germany over the UK, was certainly the case with Obama and Merkel as opposed to Bush and Blair and Trump and Boris, would likely be he case with Biden too
@eadric you’re bleating on about the “culture war” except for the past however many years you’ve been egging it on from the other side. You’re just as bad.
Given that I've only been on the site six months that would be quite an achievement
No, not like SeanT at all.
He always made sure he had at least one post supporting every view, so he could whip it out, er, quote it at the right moment and claim to be Nostradamus.
The other relevant factor that I think helps to explain why Washington DC hasn't been considered worthy of having voting representation in Congress is that the majority of its population is Black. I believe that DC does have a member of Congress but they can't vote - when we lived there it was Eleanor Holmes Norton IIRC who was excellent. It's a fantastic city with some beautiful neighbourhoods. It's an absolute disgrace that its population is disenfranchised.
Isn't it more to do with the fact it would add two Democratic senators to the senate rather than race?
Unfortunately, with blacks overwhelmingly voting Democrat, you can't split the two.
Virtually everything in America has a racial component, to an extent baffling to us, though we're starting to see glimpses of it here.
Following the Civil War it was the Democrats who were the party of the South and strongly anti equality. The KKK was largely a Democrat organisation. At that time it was the Republicans who were the party of civil rights and equality as well as general liberalisation.
It is an interesting question about when it all changed. Not one I know the answer to. Does anyone on here know when the transformation happened?
The Civil Rights Act in the 1960.
LBJ said he had cost the Democrats the South for a generation.
A lot of hard right of the GOP are former Dems who switched sides around that time.
Wow I hadn't realised it was that recent (relatively as I know I am showing my age here thinking the 60s is recent)
Outside the South the Democrats had already become the more liberal - less conservative party - stretching back to at least FDR.Bluecollar workers generally voted Democrat.
Yet in 2016 the Republicans did best with skilled working class voters go the first time under Trump, just as the Tories did under Boris in 2019
Indeed. Despite Dixieland, the Republicans were seen as the more conservative party during the inter-war years - eg Hoover v FDR.
@eadric you’re bleating on about the “culture war” except for the past however many years you’ve been egging it on from the other side. You’re just as bad.
Given that I've only been on the site six months that would be quite an achievement
No, not like SeanT at all.
He always made sure he had at least one post supporting every view, so he could whip it out, er, quote it at the right moment and claim to be Nostradamus.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
I would find both symbols offensive, and would assume that the boyfriend intended to give offence. I would find the Nazi symbol the more offensive of the two.
@eadric you’re bleating on about the “culture war” except for the past however many years you’ve been egging it on from the other side. You’re just as bad.
Given that I've only been on the site six months that would be quite an achievement
No, not like SeanT at all.
He always made sure he had at least one post supporting every view, so he could whip it out, er, quote it at the right moment and claim to be Nostradamus.
@eadric you’re bleating on about the “culture war” except for the past however many years you’ve been egging it on from the other side. You’re just as bad.
Given that I've only been on the site six months that would be quite an achievement
No, not like SeanT at all.
He always made sure he had at least one post supporting every view, so he could whip it out, er, quote it at the right moment and claim to be Nostradamus.
I thought he was Nostradamus ...
He is so accurate in his predictions
Haven’t seen that handle used here yet. But no doubt it will be.
I feel very dumb indeed - I only just realised what antifa meant.
So you probably had no clue what I meant on PT when I replied to your very important observation - that "blame on both sides does not mean EQUAL blame on both sides" - with a reference to the recent conflicts between the "Fash and the Antifa."
Well I knew what they were about, I just didn't connect it with their name which I assumed referenced something.
Whatever. The point - your point - is what's important. There is no equivalence between the 2 sides in this conflict. The racist hooligan Right are in a different league to the antifa Left. The former are ALL gormless goons whereas only a fraction of the latter are. Anyone who cannot see or acknowledge this needs to have a stern word with themselves.
Yes completely right
Marxists like the idiots in antifa have culled over 100 million supporting your poisonous ideology
Fascists killed 10 million supporting their poisonous ideology
It is clear antifa are 10 times worse
Ah good it's you.
Can you answer my "boyfriend tee shirt" question please?
Don't overthink it - just your honest instinctual answer putting yourself in that position.
That's the point of the question. It has to done in that spirit.
I won't jump down your throat either way. Would just be grateful for simple uncomplicated honesty instead of the sophistry of others.
I still can't excited about statues or about the imminent racial cultural war which is going to tear down civilisation.
I don't know what slightly bores me more - those who are determined to view the fall of every statue as a blow against "western" or "liberal" values and those whose either total ignorance of or complete distorted misunderstanding of history leads them to believe there's huge symbolism in pulling down a statue.
As for the US, Trump's advisers will be aware 70% of those who vote are White and Trump won the White vote by 20 points last time. If Biden has cut that to eight points, Trump is in a lot of trouble.
On a slightly related, while I don't doubt Johnson will say all the right things and superficially harmony will reign if Biden wins in November, I just wonder if, as happened when Clinton won in 1992, there will be a new chill in Anglo-American relations, a helpful thing (not) if we are trying to agree a comprehensive trade deal with Washington.
Democrat Presidents since the end of the Cold War tend to favour Germany over the UK, was certainly the case with Obama and Merkel as opposed to Bush and Blair and Trump and Boris, would likely be he case with Biden too
Bush shafted Blair (who kind of asked for it) so the parallel breaks down a bit there.
The other relevant factor that I think helps to explain why Washington DC hasn't been considered worthy of having voting representation in Congress is that the majority of its population is Black. I believe that DC does have a member of Congress but they can't vote - when we lived there it was Eleanor Holmes Norton IIRC who was excellent. It's a fantastic city with some beautiful neighbourhoods. It's an absolute disgrace that its population is disenfranchised.
Isn't it more to do with the fact it would add two Democratic senators to the senate rather than race?
Unfortunately, with blacks overwhelmingly voting Democrat, you can't split the two.
Virtually everything in America has a racial component, to an extent baffling to us, though we're starting to see glimpses of it here.
Following the Civil War it was the Democrats who were the party of the South and strongly anti equality. The KKK was largely a Democrat organisation. At that time it was the Republicans who were the party of civil rights and equality as well as general liberalisation.
It is an interesting question about when it all changed. Not one I know the answer to. Does anyone on here know when the transformation happened?
The first crack was Truman, who was shocked when he discovered the extent and impact of Jim Crow and stood in 1948 on a desegregationist platform, opposed by J Strom Thurmond as a ‘States’ Rights’ Democrat (in a very conscious echo of the Confederacy). Thurmond won four of the ex-Confederate states and polled double-digits in most of the others.
There was a further rupture in 1968, when Democratic Governor George Wallace (Alabama) again stood on a segregationist platform in protest at Johnson and Humphrey’s Civil Rights agenda, which tipped the south away from Humphrey and possibly cost him the election (his 46 votes, plus splitting the Democratic vote in five other states, could have been crucial).
Following this election, Nixon developed the ‘Southern Strategy’ based on law and order, tradition, religion etc (stop laughing at the back) with the aim of luring the disaffected Southern whites to himself. This bore fruit when he swept the south in 1972.
Since then, although Carter, Clinton and Obama won odd states there, the South has been solidly Republican. Of course, demographic changes as the whites become a minority may well change it back.
The change and how solid it has become may be an unhappy parallel for Labour as they survey their collapse in the North...
Carter won all the South in 1976 bar Virginia.
So he did. Surprised to learn that as I was under the distinct impression he lost Florida, Alabama and the Carolinas. Must have been mixing it up with 1980.
The other relevant factor that I think helps to explain why Washington DC hasn't been considered worthy of having voting representation in Congress is that the majority of its population is Black. I believe that DC does have a member of Congress but they can't vote - when we lived there it was Eleanor Holmes Norton IIRC who was excellent. It's a fantastic city with some beautiful neighbourhoods. It's an absolute disgrace that its population is disenfranchised.
Isn't it more to do with the fact it would add two Democratic senators to the senate rather than race?
Unfortunately, with blacks overwhelmingly voting Democrat, you can't split the two.
Virtually everything in America has a racial component, to an extent baffling to us, though we're starting to see glimpses of it here.
Following the Civil War it was the Democrats who were the party of the South and strongly anti equality. The KKK was largely a Democrat organisation. At that time it was the Republicans who were the party of civil rights and equality as well as general liberalisation.
It is an interesting question about when it all changed. Not one I know the answer to. Does anyone on here know when the transformation happened?
The first crack was Truman, who was shocked when he discovered the extent and impact of Jim Crow and stood in 1948 on a desegregationist platform, opposed by J Strom Thurmond as a ‘States’ Rights’ Democrat (in a very conscious echo of the Confederacy). Thurmond won four of the ex-Confederate states and polled double-digits in most of the others.
There was a further rupture in 1968, when Democratic Governor George Wallace (Alabama) again stood on a segregationist platform in protest at Johnson and Humphrey’s Civil Rights agenda, which tipped the south away from Humphrey and possibly cost him the election (his 46 votes, plus splitting the Democratic vote in five other states, could have been crucial).
Following this election, Nixon developed the ‘Southern Strategy’ based on law and order, tradition, religion etc (stop laughing at the back) with the aim of luring the disaffected Southern whites to himself. This bore fruit when he swept the south in 1972.
Since then, although Carter, Clinton and Obama won odd states there, the South has been solidly Republican. Of course, demographic changes as the whites become a minority may well change it back.
The change and how solid it has become may be an unhappy parallel for Labour as they survey their collapse in the North...
Carter won all the South in 1976 bar Virginia.
Ford won New Jersey, Nevada, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Illinois, California, Washington and Oregon by contrast.
Indeed Ford won most of the states Hillary won in 2016 (including Virginia being the only southern state they both won) while most of Carter's states voted for Trump in 2016
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Its a stupid question. It is the equivalent of asking whether you would like your daughter to be hooked on crack or heroin. The only sane answer is to reject both.
No it's a very good question. It forces you to weigh up 2 things.
Please try to answer.
I am not sure it is good question, are both characters deserving of equal contempt.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
I would find both symbols offensive, and would assume that the boyfriend intended to give offence. I would find the Nazi symbol the more offensive of the two.
Surely the main question would be though, ‘why is my daughter going out with a thick racist who supports violence?’
‘And how do I get her away from him without making him sound much more attractive?’
I feel very dumb indeed - I only just realised what antifa meant.
So you probably had no clue what I meant on PT when I replied to your very important observation - that "blame on both sides does not mean EQUAL blame on both sides" - with a reference to the recent conflicts between the "Fash and the Antifa."
Well I knew what they were about, I just didn't connect it with their name which I assumed referenced something.
Whatever. The point - your point - is what's important. There is no equivalence between the 2 sides in this conflict. The racist hooligan Right are in a different league to the antifa Left. The former are ALL gormless goons whereas only a fraction of the latter are. Anyone who cannot see or acknowledge this needs to have a stern word with themselves.
Yes completely right
Marxists like the idiots in antifa have culled over 100 million supporting your poisonous ideology
Fascists killed 10 million supporting their poisonous ideology
It is clear antifa are 10 times worse
Ah good it's you.
Can you answer my "boyfriend tee shirt" question please?
Don't overthink it - just your honest instinctual answer putting yourself in that position.
That's the point of the question. It has to done in that spirit.
I won't jump down your throat either way. Would just be grateful for simple uncomplicated honesty instead of the sophistry of others.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
But which one? Put yourself in the position and tell me which of the 2 would make you more uneasy than the other about the impending marriage.
Meanwhile, in other news, I see that the four-day week concept has started doing the rounds again. Apparently, according to the backers of this proposal, a 30-hour working week without any associated reduction in pay would somehow work because it would magically generate vast productivity gains, so reform would pay for itself.
I would imagine that this could conceivably be successful in the case of some bored office types, but not for anyone who actually has to make stuff or move it around. There aren't many inefficient businesses left in those kinds of sectors. They've all been wiped out by the competition.
Trust me, I'd love nothing more than to have three-day weekends and still get paid the same wages - wouldn't anyone - but it's pie-in-the-sky. If you want to force your typical factory or haulage firm, for example, to cut all its workers' hours by approximately a fifth then productivity will decline by a fifth and wages will have to be cut by a fifth to make the business viable. That's only going to work if you do something radical to cut the cost of living for employees, such as abolishing basic rate income tax, which would presumably cost the Exchequer something north of £100bn every year. You'll potentially get some of that back from saving on social security spending and increased receipts from other taxes if full employment can be realised, but you're still going to be left with an enormous hole in the already ravaged public finances that needs filling.
OTOH if, as the four-day week evangelists presumably want, businesses are expected to get around this by expanding their workforces by 20% *AND* paying both the existing and new workers at the current going rate, then most of those businesses will either move to other countries to get away from these regulations, or go kaput. It's bonkers.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
Is dinner dress code in your house Black Tie or White Tie?
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
the hammer and sickle though I would not let either in but that would offend me most it killed ten times more and brought poverty to billions
OK! Thank you.I predict you will be in the minority but we will see. Hats off for not obfuscating.
EDIT -
But are you sure that was genuinely instinctual rather than calculated?
Think about the sort of people who are attracted to the 2 extremes. It's your daughter, remember, not an ivory tower question.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
Is dinner dress code in your house Black Tie or White Tie?
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
the hammer and sickle though I would not let either in but that would offend me most it killed ten times more and brought poverty to billions
OK! Thank you.
I predict you will be in the minority but we will see.
Hats off for not obfuscating.
I doubt it anyone who can count can see marxists have done far more evil than the fascists ever managed to. Now you could argue, probably correctly that its because the fascists were halted in their track. Sadly no one halted marxism or socialism and there are still assholes that support and excuse it
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
Is dinner dress code in your house Black Tie or White Tie?
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
But which one? Put yourself in the position and tell me which of the 2 would make you more uneasy than the other about the impending marriage.
C'mon - gun to head.
I think I already answered that. Mr. Swastika is probably more physically dangerous to me, but apart from that and the fact that I could possibly mock Mr. H&S about JCR politics, there's nothing in it.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
But which would freak you out the most - or if you like the MORE - of the two?
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
Mr. Hammer & Sickle is more likely to be middle-class and educated. He is particularly contemptible, because an educated person should know better.
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
Is dinner dress code in your house Black Tie or White Tie?
Black or brown shirts perhaps.
Only kidding!
Surely in this context it’s black or red?
Beverley was quite specific in her questioning. Otherwise yes.
I still can't excited about statues or about the imminent racial cultural war which is going to tear down civilisation.
I don't know what slightly bores me more - those who are determined to view the fall of every statue as a blow against "western" or "liberal" values and those whose either total ignorance of or complete distorted misunderstanding of history leads them to believe there's huge symbolism in pulling down a statue.
As for the US, Trump's advisers will be aware 70% of those who vote are White and Trump won the White vote by 20 points last time. If Biden has cut that to eight points, Trump is in a lot of trouble.
On a slightly related, while I don't doubt Johnson will say all the right things and superficially harmony will reign if Biden wins in November, I just wonder if, as happened when Clinton won in 1992, there will be a new chill in Anglo-American relations, a helpful thing (not) if we are trying to agree a comprehensive trade deal with Washington.
Democrat Presidents since the end of the Cold War tend to favour Germany over the UK, was certainly the case with Obama and Merkel as opposed to Bush and Blair and Trump and Boris, would likely be he case with Biden too
Bush shafted Blair (who kind of asked for it) so the parallel breaks down a bit there.
He didn't he went to the UN as Blair asked for then Blair supported Bush in the Iraq War despite it not getting UN backing, France and Germany refused to back Bush over Iraq
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
OK, they're both terrible, but that's deliberately not the question.
And if the chips are down, then as Churchill worked out, there's only one way to go.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
OK, they're both terrible, but that's deliberately not the question.
And if the chips are down, then as Churchill worked out, there's only one way to go.
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
OK, they're both terrible, but that's deliberately not the question.
And if the chips are down, then as Churchill worked out, there's only one way to go.
Churchill dealt with the immediate threat, dont think he didnt see both as equally awful
Interesting rumours here that the Leicester cases are particularly in a food processing factory.
Indeed. What are the mistakes that all these food businesses are making?
There isn't a tradition of particularly enthusiastic choral singing amongst meat packing plant workers, is there?
Noise, so speaking loudly, low paid workers, often immigrants in overcrowded accommodation, cool moist surfaces, and social distancing problematic.
Ah, so a bit of stupid behaviour but mostly the product of cheap imported labour and crap conditions.
People will have to get used to paying more for food if we're going to deal effectively with those kinds of issues. That'll go down like a cup of cold sick.
Are cups of cold sick another product that Trump's America want to export to us?
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
Of course the answer is both. Just because a lot of lefties are gullible enough to wear the symbols of totalitarianism and think they're being cool doesn't make their participation in evil any more acceptable than the one with the swastika.
p.s. And it's 'the more'
Because grammar is the only acceptable form of fascism.
OK, they're both terrible, but that's deliberately not the question.
And if the chips are down, then as Churchill worked out, there's only one way to go.
Ally with the Communist to kill the Nazi, then acquire nukes and say 'Any closer to me than East Berlin, and you're history'?
Interesting rumours here that the Leicester cases are particularly in a food processing factory.
Indeed. What are the mistakes that all these food businesses are making?
There isn't a tradition of particularly enthusiastic choral singing amongst meat packing plant workers, is there?
Noise, so speaking loudly, low paid workers, often immigrants in overcrowded accommodation, cool moist surfaces, and social distancing problematic.
Ah, so a bit of stupid behaviour but mostly the product of cheap imported labour and crap conditions.
People will have to get used to paying more for food if we're going to deal effectively with those kinds of issues. That'll go down like a cup of cold sick.
Are cups of cold sick another product that Trump's America want to export to us?
I'm assuming it'll come in microwavable containers, like Pot Noodle, to be enjoyed at whatever temperature one prefers.
You do not get to choose your daughter's husband. That is her task.
You do if you are from the right culture because multiculturalism is good right
Indeed, as an Anglo Saxon aristorat, I would demand a dowry!
yes was the same for the english and anglo saxons in the past where a daughter would be sold for land/money/title. I decry that. Difference is they grew out of it some cultures havent
Imagine your daughter bringing her new boyfriend to meet you. Dinner at yours. Bell goes, you buzz them in and there he is. He's wearing a tee shirt with -
(i) hammer & sickle and "workers of the world unite!"
(ii) a swastika and "weisser macht!"
Which of these 2 sub optimal scenarios freaks you out the most?
The MOST. So "both" is not an allowable answer.
the hammer and sickle though I would not let either in but that would offend me most it killed ten times more and brought poverty to billions
It must grieve you that the 1940-45 Churchill government vigorously encouraged all councils in the UK to fly the Hammer and Sickle over their buildings to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Red Army.
I feel very dumb indeed - I only just realised what antifa meant.
So you probably had no clue what I meant on PT when I replied to your very important observation - that "blame on both sides does not mean EQUAL blame on both sides" - with a reference to the recent conflicts between the "Fash and the Antifa."
Well I knew what they were about, I just didn't connect it with their name which I assumed referenced something.
Whatever. The point - your point - is what's important. There is no equivalence between the 2 sides in this conflict. The racist hooligan Right are in a different league to the antifa Left. The former are ALL gormless goons whereas only a fraction of the latter are. Anyone who cannot see or acknowledge this needs to have a stern word with themselves.
Yes completely right
Marxists like the idiots in antifa have culled over 100 million supporting your poisonous ideology
Fascists killed 10 million supporting their poisonous ideology
It is clear antifa are 10 times worse
Ah good it's you.
Can you answer my "boyfriend tee shirt" question please?
Don't overthink it - just your honest instinctual answer putting yourself in that position.
That's the point of the question. It has to done in that spirit.
I won't jump down your throat either way. Would just be grateful for simple uncomplicated honesty instead of the sophistry of others.
I feel very dumb indeed - I only just realised what antifa meant.
So you probably had no clue what I meant on PT when I replied to your very important observation - that "blame on both sides does not mean EQUAL blame on both sides" - with a reference to the recent conflicts between the "Fash and the Antifa."
Well I knew what they were about, I just didn't connect it with their name which I assumed referenced something.
Whatever. The point - your point - is what's important. There is no equivalence between the 2 sides in this conflict. The racist hooligan Right are in a different league to the antifa Left. The former are ALL gormless goons whereas only a fraction of the latter are. Anyone who cannot see or acknowledge this needs to have a stern word with themselves.
Yes completely right
Marxists like the idiots in antifa have culled over 100 million supporting your poisonous ideology
Fascists killed 10 million supporting their poisonous ideology
It is clear antifa are 10 times worse
It must grieve you that the 1940-45 Churchill vigorously encouraged all councils in the UK to fly the Hammer and Sickle over their buildings to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Red Army.
shrugs why would it propaganda to keep allies on side till an imminent threat had been nullified. Then you deal with the long term threat. Are you trying to claim marxism isn't as I described. Would you perhaps care to venture an estimate of how many it has killed and left in poverty to show you actually have a point?
Comments
Good article.
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/1273739801464725504
It is a radical marxist organisation from the outset.
People will have to get used to paying more for food if we're going to deal effectively with those kinds of issues. That'll go down like a cup of cold sick.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-six-trump-campaign-staff-test-positive-before-first-rally-with-10-000-people-in-tulsa-12011483
His previous reason was that he'd feel uncomfortable wearing a mask as he met with "presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings (and) queens" while "sitting in the Oval Office, behind that beautiful Resolute Desk".
Someone might explain to him that masks aren't only to protect the wearer.
If it is simply another anarchist group seizing on a legitimate cause to further its highly sinister aims, like Extinction Rebellion, it can and should be dismissed.
Stevens to my mind is one of the unreservedly good guys of the Civil War era.
Shocked myself writing that but perhaps only someone from the centre-left can defeat this?
I view it as so important that, if they can, they'd get my vote - on loan.
Either answer or explain why you won't.
It is a serious question not a messing around exercise.
The monarch is Head of State in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and 16 nations in total. They are not just Head of State of England
Marxists like the idiots in antifa have culled over 100 million supporting your poisonous ideology
Fascists killed 10 million supporting their poisonous ideology
It is clear antifa are 10 times worse
Please try to answer.
I still can't excited about statues or about the imminent racial cultural war which is going to tear down civilisation.
I don't know what slightly bores me more - those who are determined to view the fall of every statue as a blow against "western" or "liberal" values and those whose either total ignorance of or complete distorted misunderstanding of history leads them to believe there's huge symbolism in pulling down a statue.
As for the US, Trump's advisers will be aware 70% of those who vote are White and Trump won the White vote by 20 points last time. If Biden has cut that to eight points, Trump is in a lot of trouble.
On a slightly related, while I don't doubt Johnson will say all the right things and superficially harmony will reign if Biden wins in November, I just wonder if, as happened when Clinton won in 1992, there will be a new chill in Anglo-American relations, a helpful thing (not) if we are trying to agree a comprehensive trade deal with Washington.
30% of the staff in fish factories in Grimsby are immigrants for example:
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/what-planned-new-immigration-system-3866858
though I would not let either in but that would offend me most it killed ten times more and brought poverty to billions
Mr. Swastika is more likely to be working-class and less well-educated. He may possibly have the excuse of ignorance, but he's also more likely to kick my head in if I try to enlighten him.
Wouldn't let either one in the house. Not just because of their deviant ideology, but because T-shirts are simply not acceptable dress at dinner.
His activism, based on community-based leaflets, petitions and local campaigning, worked brilliantly in Ladywood and, helped by finishing second in 1966 and Labour unpopularity nationally, helped him win the seat.
It wasn't just a tragedy he lost the seat so narrowly in 1970 but he died just a couple of years later.
It's why you get the comments like "Oh it's few bad apples", "They obviously don't know who they're pulling down statues of"
They really do mean what they are doing, and have from the beginning.
(In this particular case, of course, we all know the actual answer the poster would give. But that’s not the point.)
He always made sure he had at least one post supporting every view, so he could whip it out, er, quote it at the right moment and claim to be Nostradamus.
Only on PB.
He is so accurate in his predictions
But no doubt it will be.
Can you answer my "boyfriend tee shirt" question please?
Don't overthink it - just your honest instinctual answer putting yourself in that position.
That's the point of the question. It has to done in that spirit.
I won't jump down your throat either way. Would just be grateful for simple uncomplicated honesty instead of the sophistry of others.
Indeed Ford won most of the states Hillary won in 2016 (including Virginia being the only southern state they both won) while most of Carter's states voted for Trump in 2016
Boyfriend:
(i) is Wolfie Smith
and:
(ii) is Anders Breivik
Stalin killed 20 odd million....ah but he wasnt a proper socialist/communist/marxist
Hitler killed 8 million ....ah but he wasnt a proper fascist
Quite rightly the neo nazi's would be derided. People who say the first should possibly take a good look at their morals
‘And how do I get her away from him without making him sound much more attractive?’
C'mon - gun to head.
They’ve just had energetic sex on top of my fence.
I would imagine that this could conceivably be successful in the case of some bored office types, but not for anyone who actually has to make stuff or move it around. There aren't many inefficient businesses left in those kinds of sectors. They've all been wiped out by the competition.
Trust me, I'd love nothing more than to have three-day weekends and still get paid the same wages - wouldn't anyone - but it's pie-in-the-sky. If you want to force your typical factory or haulage firm, for example, to cut all its workers' hours by approximately a fifth then productivity will decline by a fifth and wages will have to be cut by a fifth to make the business viable. That's only going to work if you do something radical to cut the cost of living for employees, such as abolishing basic rate income tax, which would presumably cost the Exchequer something north of £100bn every year. You'll potentially get some of that back from saving on social security spending and increased receipts from other taxes if full employment can be realised, but you're still going to be left with an enormous hole in the already ravaged public finances that needs filling.
OTOH if, as the four-day week evangelists presumably want, businesses are expected to get around this by expanding their workforces by 20% *AND* paying both the existing and new workers at the current going rate, then most of those businesses will either move to other countries to get away from these regulations, or go kaput. It's bonkers.
EDIT -
But are you sure that was genuinely instinctual rather than calculated?
Think about the sort of people who are attracted to the 2 extremes. It's your daughter, remember, not an ivory tower question.
Only kidding!
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1274383082041126912
Either way: no date, no wedding, no dice.
And if the chips are down, then as Churchill worked out, there's only one way to go.
An acceptable compromise, I suppose.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-reading-incident-police-air-22226334?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar