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.
Some employers have got the wrong end of the stick. 80% of the pay for 100% of the hours.
You do not get to choose your daughter's husband. Her husband is her choice.
This is a particularly silly thought experiment about choosing between a Nazi and a communist for a son-in-law (not one I created), and that's the angle you have the most difficulty with?
If her choice is a totalitarian and she expects to inherit, I would gently persuade her to reconsider...
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 did answer it
Yes I have seen that now. My apologies.
apology accepted. Sorry working class probably thick so I don't pussy foot around eliding things and couching in weasel words
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
Are you entirely sure what you are alluding to is accurate?
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'?
An acceptable compromise, I suppose.
Sub-optimal even then. The best answer is never to get into a position when you have to choose between communists and fascists. And the debate between backing non-fascist authoritarian right governments and communists isn't quite as obvious (think very late era Franco in Spain). But if you're talking actual Nazis vs actual Communists, I can't put it better than the Great Man himself;
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
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
So what did Blair get in return for trashing his reputation by supporting Bush's Iraq adventure?
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
Are you entirely sure what you are alluding to is accurate?
Lady Diana Spencer says hi!
The dowry was paid to the husbands family. It is a practise pretty much dead in western society if the royal family still do it thats an anacrhonism it doesnt mean its widespread you can point at one inbred family and tar the rest of the anglo saxon idiots with the same brush
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?
In other words the symbol isn't important except when it comes to your daughter's boyfriend. Fair enough, we all have different priorities.
You do not get to choose your daughter's husband. Her husband is her choice.
This is a particularly silly thought experiment about choosing between a Nazi and a communist for a son-in-law (not one I created), and that's the angle you have the most difficulty with?
If her choice is a totalitarian and she expects to inherit, I would gently persuade her to reconsider...
Maybe she sees more to life than an inheritance in some distant future segment of her life. Besides, I have no difficulty with either "dinner guest", but I find it amusing that you think that members of your family should live their lives as you see fit.
You do not get to choose your daughter's husband. Her husband is her choice.
This is a particularly silly thought experiment about choosing between a Nazi and a communist for a son-in-law (not one I created), and that's the angle you have the most difficulty with?
If her choice is a totalitarian and she expects to inherit, I would gently persuade her to reconsider...
Life expectancy these days she would be retired by the time she gets anything to inherit. Controlling fathers will have to find other ways and means.
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
Are you entirely sure what you are alluding to is accurate?
Lady Diana Spencer says hi!
The dowry was paid to the husbands family. It is a practise pretty much dead in western society if the royal family still do it thats an anacrhonism it doesnt mean its widespread you can point at one inbred family and tar the rest of the anglo saxon idiots with the same brush
To be honest I can see where you are going with this, so I'd prefer to beg to differ, and call it a day. Thanks.
For all their virtue signalling tonight from BLM to covid-19 , the one practical and very related thing premiership footballers could have done in practice tonight to prevent covid-19 (not spitting ) seems to be beyond them. Quite depressing really
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?
In other words the symbol isn't important except when it comes to your daughter's boyfriend. Fair enough, we all have different priorities.
I gave a firm answer on the daughters boyfriend. The fact someone that was not me chose a different answer in a time of war does not change my answer nor was I excusing it merely explaining why I thought he probably did it
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
Are you entirely sure what you are alluding to is accurate?
Lady Diana Spencer says hi!
The dowry was paid to the husbands family. It is a practise pretty much dead in western society if the royal family still do it thats an anacrhonism it doesnt mean its widespread you can point at one inbred family and tar the rest of the anglo saxon idiots with the same brush
To be honest I can see where you are going with this, so I'd prefer to beg to differ, and call it a day. Thanks.
I wasnt going anywhere I answered your question, you tried what about I answered it. It is not me with motives here
Meanwhile, in other news, I see that the four-day week concept has started doing the rounds again.
There is no harm in that. Simply have 9 hour days
Suddenly I’m interested in this idea
I used to do it when I lived in Manchester and worked in London. I went back late on a Thursday night and had 3 days at home. Then back on the M6 at 5am to get through Brum before 6.15am and the Cannock to J8 tailback...
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.)
In my experience, youngsters choose their partners, not the parents. If Fox jr wanted to bring a girl home to meet me, I wouldn't be rude enough to question their clothing. If its fine by Fox jr, its fine by me.
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.)
In my experience, youngsters choose their partners, not the parents. If Fox jr wanted to bring a girl home to meet me, I wouldn't be rude enough to question their clothing. If its fine by Fox jr, its fine by me.
I have once questioned my son I will freely admit, he bought a muslim girl home which is actually fine by me but I did sit them down and suggest they talk to her parents before getting to deep. Is that racist? I was happy he had someone he liked I merely thought it better they talked it over with her parents first
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
So what did Blair get in return for trashing his reputation by supporting Bush's Iraq adventure?
He ideologically believed in the Iraq War to free Iraq of Saddam and still does
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.
It sounds good but I think we'll all be working harder after this crisis to make it up.
Too early to make any judgement on the motivation for what appears to be a horrific attack. Best to wait for official news.
EDIT: apologies, that was flippant
This looks utterly horrific
It’s dangerous to speculate and could cause far more reactive trouble based an false assumptions. Justvread the twitter feed to see how people are lining up behind there own prejudices.
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.
No. I consider both to be equally evil. Neither would freak me out of course. I would just put it down to the stupidity and ignorance of the boyfriend. There is a lot of it about these days.
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)
There's an argument that it may have happened in the 1940s when President Truman desegregated the armed forces.
Dem Strom Thurmond stood on a States' Right platform in the 1948 election and Truman really pissed off the South by espousing end of Jim Crow.
By 1964 Thurmond switched parties and joined the GOP.
Truman remains my all time favourite US President
Toss up between LBJ and Bill for me.
I base mine on both his actions and his own personal ideals. It is not just about the huge steps he took regarding civil rights, nor his foresight in backing the the Marshall plan and setting up both NATO and the UN.
It is about the fact that he viewed his position as President as an honour and a duty and not something for personal gain. So when he finished as President he went back to his Mother in Laws house and refused every position offered to him, every endorsement and every board room seat on the grounds that they only wanted him because he had been President. He felt that accepting any of the positions would be cashing in on his duty.
Why the F did the cops and the politicians not enforce the lockdown rules from the start, and make all demos illegal in practise, as they are in law?
Then we would have had no tit-for-tat statue topplings, no far right reaction to antifa thuggery, and we would not be in in this awful, downwards spiral
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.
I think we all now you are completely wrong there.
I will wait for official news on Reading before commenting.
Things aren't always what they first appear.
My friend in Reading lives ten minutes away from where it happened, she said the BLM protest ended several hours ago, so she's not sure what's going on, but there's a heavy police/helicopter/emergency service presence.
Donald Trump fires attorney behind inquiries into his allies The US attorney general, William Barr, said on Saturday Donald Trump had fired Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the southern district of New York who has overseen investigations and prosecutions of key Trump allies including Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen.
Berman earlier refused to confirm his resignation from the prestigious role, despite Barr announcing it on Friday night.
In a statement on Saturday, Barr said: “Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the president to remove you as of today, and he has done so.”
Why the F did the cops and the politicians not enforce the lockdown rules from the start, and make all demos illegal in practise, as they are in law?
Then we would have had no tit-for-tat statue topplings, no far right reaction to antifa thuggery, and we would not be in in this awful, downwards spiral
As a cynic, need you ask?
Yes, I need to. I don't understand why the govt didn't come down hard on the first demos, and then the counter demos. Then we'd have none of this trouble, from any side
Big Dom, the government had no moral authority left, if they had told the protestors to stay home the protestors would say they were out for an eye test.
Why the F did the cops and the politicians not enforce the lockdown rules from the start, and make all demos illegal in practise, as they are in law?
Then we would have had no tit-for-tat statue topplings, no far right reaction to antifa thuggery, and we would not be in in this awful, downwards spiral
As a cynic, need you ask?
Yes, I need to. I don't understand why the govt didn't come down hard on the first demos, and then the counter demos. Then we'd have none of this trouble, from any side
This looks like an attack at a park, not at the protest which ended in the afternoon.
I will wait for official news on Reading before commenting.
Things aren't always what they first appear.
My friend in Reading lives ten minutes away from where it happened, she said the BLM protest ended several hours ago, so she's not sure what's going on, but there's a heavy police/helicopter/emergency service presence.
The thing I have just seen said much the same - demo over hours ago and allegedly these people were just sitting in park.
Things are always confused in the early aftermath of an incident.
Why the F did the cops and the politicians not enforce the lockdown rules from the start, and make all demos illegal in practise, as they are in law?
Then we would have had no tit-for-tat statue topplings, no far right reaction to antifa thuggery, and we would not be in in this awful, downwards spiral
As a cynic, need you ask?
Yes, I need to. I don't understand why the govt didn't come down hard on the first demos, and then the counter demos. Then we'd have none of this trouble, from any side
Big Dom, the government had no moral authority left, if they had told the protestors to stay home the protestors would say they were out for an eye test.
why bother with an eye test when you just go for a drive to check them?
"Prince Harry backs move to ban Swing Low, Sweet Chariot: Duke of Sussex signals his support for review of England rugby anthem linked to slavery despite huge backlash from fans"
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)
It was actually a bit before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They started shifting during the 1960 election. King was arrested in October. Nixon said nothing. He disapproved privately, but thought it was a state matter. Kennedy condemned it and his brother negotiated King's release, while dog-whistling to southern whites that he wouldn't enforce desegregation.
Ironically Kennedy did very little for black civil rights in office, unlike Eisenhower who had sent the troops in to enforce desegregation, or Johnson, who would pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
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.
I think we all now you are completely wrong there.
All true English rugby fans hate the Welsh like no other country.
Our views on the Welsh make my views on the French look complimentary.
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)
It was actually a bit before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They started shifting during the 1960 election. King was arrested in October. Nixon said nothing. He disapproved privately, but thought it was a state matter. Kennedy condemned it and his brother negotiated King's release.
Ironically Kennedy did very little for them in office, unlike Eisenhower who had sent the troops in to enforce desegregation, or Johnson, who would pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
That's not true, JFK tried to pass versions of the VRA but that was thwarted by Congress.
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)
It was actually a bit before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They started shifting during the 1960 election. King was arrested in October. Nixon said nothing. He disapproved privately, but thought it was a state matter. Kennedy condemned it and his brother negotiated King's release.
Ironically Kennedy did very little for them in office, unlike Eisenhower who had sent the troops in to enforce desegregation, or Johnson, who would pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
That's not true, JFK tried to pass versions of the VRA but that was thwarted by Congress.
Proposing legislation that won't pass is doing very little.
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)
It was actually a bit before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They started shifting during the 1960 election. King was arrested in October. Nixon said nothing. He disapproved privately, but thought it was a state matter. Kennedy condemned it and his brother negotiated King's release, while dog-whistling to southern whites that he wouldn't enforce desegregation.
Ironically Kennedy did very little for black civil rights in office, unlike Eisenhower who had sent the troops in to enforce desegregation, or Johnson, who would pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Simply not true. Kennedy sent in the troops in 1963 to enforce desegregation at the University of Alabama.
Confirming the pattern we've seen I guess. Tory support similar to the election, Lib Dem to Labour switching as the two-taxi party can't get publicity.
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)
It was actually a bit before the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They started shifting during the 1960 election. King was arrested in October. Nixon said nothing. He disapproved privately, but thought it was a state matter. Kennedy condemned it and his brother negotiated King's release.
Ironically Kennedy did very little for them in office, unlike Eisenhower who had sent the troops in to enforce desegregation, or Johnson, who would pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
That's not true, JFK tried to pass versions of the VRA but that was thwarted by Congress.
I've listened to some of JFK's speeches on desegregation and his attempts at the VRA and boy was he fucking furious about the situation. Some seriously powerful stuff.
LBJ was the conservative counterweight to Kennedy to 'balance' the ticket and it is to his eternal credit that he saw it as his moral duty to implement Kennedy's vision and due to circumstances he had the power to implement it better than Kennedy would have ever had the opportunity to do.
Comments
This is a particularly silly thought experiment about choosing between a Nazi and a communist for a son-in-law (not one I created), and that's the angle you have the most difficulty with?
If her choice is a totalitarian and she expects to inherit, I would gently persuade her to reconsider...
Lady Diana Spencer says hi!
I know what I'm driving at but if others don't fair enough.
Anyway. Saturday night.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/275411/age-distribution-in-mexico/
Rivetingly the % of 15-64 year olds is pretty much identical, 66% in both cases.
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/19/fox-news-poll-voters-campaign-rallies-bad-idea-329982
At once obvious, and a pleasant surprise.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1274413442192019456?s=20
Not much detail about who was responsible for the stabbings in Reading.
He's a changed man.
*I have a French passport so I'm allowed to say that.
It is about the fact that he viewed his position as President as an honour and a duty and not something for personal gain. So when he finished as President he went back to his Mother in Laws house and refused every position offered to him, every endorsement and every board room seat on the grounds that they only wanted him because he had been President. He felt that accepting any of the positions would be cashing in on his duty.
A good man old Harry S.
But still the schools are largely closed.
Alien: Helloo, I am a Martian. Take me to your leaders.
Human: OK, if you're sure that's what you want...
(5 minutes pass)
Alien: Take me away from your leaders!
Human: No problem. Come meet our citizens...
Alien: Fuck this - I'm going home!
Things aren't always what they first appear.
The US attorney general, William Barr, said on Saturday Donald Trump had fired Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the southern district of New York who has overseen investigations and prosecutions of key Trump allies including Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen.
Berman earlier refused to confirm his resignation from the prestigious role, despite Barr announcing it on Friday night.
In a statement on Saturday, Barr said: “Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the president to remove you as of today, and he has done so.”
Guardian blog
Things are always confused in the early aftermath of an incident.
https://twitter.com/MarkFrancois12/status/1274336982538354688?s=20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8443231/Prince-Harry-backs-ban-Swing-Low-Sweet-Chariot.html
Ironically Kennedy did very little for black civil rights in office, unlike Eisenhower who had sent the troops in to enforce desegregation, or Johnson, who would pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Our views on the Welsh make my views on the French look complimentary.
NYTimes
https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1274436054322462721
Police are understood to be treating the incident as a random attack and are not sure who is responsible.
Why do the police say inherently contradictory things like this?
Very small Tory majority
LBJ was the conservative counterweight to Kennedy to 'balance' the ticket and it is to his eternal credit that he saw it as his moral duty to implement Kennedy's vision and due to circumstances he had the power to implement it better than Kennedy would have ever had the opportunity to do.
Polling parity gets ever closer
And I'll show you a man who's trying to shag a vegan.