2 Samuel 22:50 applies to the British Polling Council – politicalbetting.com

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.

Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...

So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.

Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”

However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are

DavidL said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_xP said:

Westminster Voting Intention:

CON: 39% (-1)
LAB: 31% (-1)
GRN: 9% (+1)
LDM: 8% (-1)
SNP: 5% (=)
RFM: 4% (+1)

Via @YouGov, 25-26 Aug.
Changes w/ 17-18 Aug.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/27/voting-intention-con-39-lab-31-25-26-aug?utm_source=twitter+&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=voting_intention

Greens about to replace Lib-Dems as Britain's third party?

Christ no. Am I to be left with no choice but the Conservatives until the end of time?

I don't know. Your (very, very sensible, BTW - I'd have liked them if I weren't on the wrong bit of kit) remarks the other day on Covid and health policy point to you joining the SNP ere long.

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

Well, he's a party official and elected politician. The empirical definition of a Tory.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

Shame Frankie didn't let the 5000 dead of the Blue Division he sent to Russia to fight with the Nazis know about his neutral non-Naziness.

paulyork64 said:

kjh said:

Northern_Al said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

I have a strong suspicion that Pinochet may have been your favourite leader. A bit tougher than Franco.

I read that as pinocchio initially. Had to double check.

Did Pinochet always let his conscience be his guide?

Did his nose grow when he told lies?

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Out of interest, HYUFD, why do you consciously perceive yourself as a supporter of the landed interest ? The other two are much more common as publicly avowed tory loyalties.

The Tories arose in the 17th century as the party of the landed gentry and the Anglican church, the Whigs were the party of the merchant class

You're a rare man who will publicly avow support for the landed class in itself, nowadays, though.

On a historical footnote, the Whigs drew aristocratic support with huge estate holdings, larger than the gentry's overall, but their publicly avowed values were quite different from the Tories', and more progressive.

Where does the most staunch Tory support still come from today? Rural areas and landowners

This is correct.

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

"Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world"

That's a lot of vaccines were one man to take. He must be really Polio resistant,

He gets 50 cents a shot of the first 100 million shots of AZ vaccine produced in India and significantly more after that

External Link please to back up the allegation as the only thing I can see is that their foundation has subsidised the first 100 million shots produced there so they are sold for $3 each.

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2021/07/blind-items-revealed-4_01000380790.html

That's your source? A random internet blog which doesn't itself give any, y'know, sources for this complete heap of bull?
@eek only just beat me to calling you out on this, but ten minutes of research shows absolutely nothing, NOTHING, to corroborate your fantasy.
You are a fraud and a lost and a fantasist. And an complete embarrassment. You should really leave now.

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.

Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...

So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.

Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”

However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are

Plenty of people disagree with their relatives' politics. Unless you think politics are genetically ingrained?

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

@MikeSmithson, OGH - let's not have any religious headers of any sort.

I've written to you previously about your wonky child.

Poor innocent child.

Clearly you're not familiar with Proverbs 5:19 or Ezekiel 23:20 or Pulp Fiction, all of whom I am trying to work into PB headers.

I'm not. Perhaps revelation is at hand. Do expand on your beliefs.

I think most PBers know my beliefs. I'm the world's worst Muslim, the reality is I'm a Muslim two days a year for appearances.

I've been agnostic since my teenage years, however as a young child I've always been interested in religious histories of many faiths.

I love learning in particular about antipopes, Avignon popes, and The Borgias.

Love a bit of hot reformation action, also love the founding of the Church of England because of Henry VIII's lust and desire for a son.

As PB's preeminent historian I also love the historical angle of the battles involving faiths.

Is the fact you don't drink a religious thing or a health thing?

Lifestyle choice.

I was obsessed with getting good grades and I saw my my friends make mistakes/very ill drinking lots it kinda put me off, being the responsible one was my role at university nights out.

I realised that I didn't need to do drugs or drink alcohol to have a good time.

Then after university I took a job in London which involved 100+ hour weeks so again I didn't have the time or energy to get trashed.

Five years later I took a job in Leeds, moved back oop North to North Yorkshire which involved a 120 mile commute every day then I started a relationship with someone who didn't drive and lived in Birkenhead so that became a 270 mile round trip every weekend.

A few years earlier one of my colleagues was done for drink driving 36 hours after his last drink and that also petrified me.

So again alcohol really wasn't an option for me.

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Out of interest, HYUFD, why do you consciously perceive yourself as a supporter of the landed interest ? The other two are much more common as publicly avowed tory loyalties.

The Tories arose in the 17th century as the party of the landed gentry and the Anglican church, the Whigs were the party of the merchant class

You're a rare man who will publicly avow support for the landed class in itself, nowadays, though.

On a historical footnote, the Whigs drew aristocratic support with huge estate holdings, larger than the gentry's overall, but their publicly avowed values were quite different from the Tories', and more progressive.

Where does the most staunch Tory support still come from today? Rural areas and landowners

This is correct.

It was also the easiest kind of area for the Tories to bully their employees and tenants.

@HYUFD on Bill Gates earlier "lately his methods have become more dubious."
On Pinochet and Franco. Did some good things and backed Britain.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

HYUFD said:

Northern_Al said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

I have a strong suspicion that Pinochet may have been your favourite leader. A bit tougher than Franco.

Pinochet did of course at least help the UK in the Falklands War, as Baroness Thatcher acknowledged

You are crossing the line from loyal Conservative to fascist apologist with consumate ease this evening. Your views may not go down well with some people you hope will vote for you in future elections.

Some of these views are best kept to yourself, better still research fascist brutality in Spain, Chile and Argentina, and as a practicing Christian have a thought for those who were tortured and killed because of their political leanings. You would not be best pleased if British people disappeared without trace because they were Johnson supporting Conservatives would you?

I did not say I was a Francoist , I said he was not all bad, given the choice between Franco and the communists in the 1930s many conservatives of the time preferred Franco.

Of course the main centre right party in Spain, the Popular Party, the Tories sister party even has its origins in the People's Alliance founded by the reformist Francoist minister Manuel Fraga

That's interesting. Would you say Mussolini was all bad? Hitler?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain and Franco was never a Nazi, he shrewdly kept Spain neutral in WW2.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

Whenever people ask how it is that someone like Hitler managed to get to power in a modern European country all I have to do is point them in your direction. Ideology trumping basic common decency.

Oh and before you try to Godwin me, I have made no mention of the Nazi's until you decided to bring them into the discussion as a rather obvious diversionary tactic. But if the cap fits...

So now you are calling me a Nazi, despite the fact many members of my family fought them.

Even Churchill said of Franco '“All the national and martial forces in Spain have been profoundly stirred by the rise of Italy under Mussolini to Imperial power in the Mediterranean. Italian methods are a guide. Italian achievements are a spur. Shall Spain, the greatest empire in the world when Italy was a mere bunch of disunited petty princedoms, now sink into the equalitarian squalor of a Communist State, or shall it resume its place among the great Powers of the world?”

However I of course could not care less what your libertarian extremism thinks of me as you are often just as much my ideological opponent as a socialist is and at least most socialists tend to be more polite than you are

As I already said you are the one who introduced the Nazi's into this discussion. Frankly I would go no further than to call you a fascist but I would suspect I would be being too generous to you. I suspect most people on here know exactly who the extremist is.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Omnium said:

@MikeSmithson, OGH - let's not have any religious headers of any sort.

I've written to you previously about your wonky child.

Poor innocent child.

Clearly you're not familiar with Proverbs 5:19 or Ezekiel 23:20 or Pulp Fiction, all of whom I am trying to work into PB headers.

I'm not. Perhaps revelation is at hand. Do expand on your beliefs.

I think most PBers know my beliefs. I'm the world's worst Muslim, the reality is I'm a Muslim two days a year for appearances.

I've been agnostic since my teenage years, however as a young child I've always been interested in religious histories of many faiths.

I love learning in particular about antipopes, Avignon popes, and The Borgias.

Love a bit of hot reformation action, also love the founding of the Church of England because of Henry VIII's lust and desire for a son.

As PB's preeminent historian I also love the historical angle of the battles involving faiths.

Is the fact you don't drink a religious thing or a health thing?

Lifestyle choice.

I was obsessed with getting good grades and I saw my my friends make mistakes/very ill drinking lots it kinda put me off, being the responsible one was my role at university nights out.

I realised that I didn't need to do drugs or drink alcohol to have a good time.

Then after university I took a job in London which involved 100+ hour weeks so again I didn't have the time or energy to get trashed.

Five years later I took a job in Leeds, moved back oop North to North Yorkshire which involved a 120 mile commute every day then I started a relationship with someone who didn't drive and lived in Birkenhead so that became a 270 mile round trip every weekend.

A few years earlier one of my colleagues was done for drink driving 36 hours after his last drink and that also petrified me.

So again alcohol really wasn't an option for me.

Fair enough. Just curious.

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

I worked for the party from 1965 until 2010 apart from 97 and 01

The FAA is grounding Virgin Galactic until further notice. https://twitter.com/nickschmidle/status/1433495439735758851/photo/1

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You constantly attack me as embarrassing you and the party when you have not even been bothered to consistently vote Tory at every general election, I have never voted Labour as you have

But you voted Remain, so you can't call yourself a Tory.

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

And yet Luke 15 applies:

15 Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man [a]receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ 7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine [b]just persons who need no repentance.

.

Carnyx said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

Well, he's a party official and elected politician. The empirical definition of a Tory.

Interesting that such a person would be a fan of Franco.

Or do I ‘have no right to comment’, either ?

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

So was I, while we were campaigning for Hague in all weathers BigG was not and then he voted for Blair

So basically if it wears a blue rosette you would vote and campaign for them regardless of their policies.

Casino_Royale said:

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

Those were grim years being a Tory.

I was a Tory in London between 2000 and 2005, at times I felt like the only Tory in London.

Knocking up the voters was no fun then.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

I worked for the party from 1965 until 2010 apart from 97 and 01

Yes, you're Conservative by heritage and longevity but you also float with the wind.

Quite frankly, and reading between the lines of the content of your posts on here, I very much doubt you would be if you were 50 years younger.

I think it's just a generational thing.

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

So was I, while we were campaigning for Hague in all weathers BigG was not and then he voted for Blair

So basically if it wears a blue rosette you would vote and campaign for them regardless of their policies.

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/blue-ribbon-pig-royalty-free-image/78722431?adppopup=true

But that is unkind to pigs.

For those who don't want to refight the Spainsh Civil War, this is a great review of the new songs:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/sep/02/abbas-new-songs-reviewed-a-perky-moving-return-to-pops-highest-peaks

Latest @YouGov @thetimes poll. In hindsight #Brexit right 41 (-1); wrong 47 (+1). Fwork 25-26.8 (ch since 5-6.8). https://bit.ly/3zH2NUw

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

Those were grim years being a Tory.

I was a Tory in London between 2000 and 2005, at times I felt like the only Tory in London.

Knocking up the voters was no fun then.

Well, Boris Johnson was enjoying it ; although his political career came later.

Nigelb said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

So you’re one of the exclusionary tendency, too ?

Not at all.

Casino_Royale said:

Carnyx said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

And yet Luke 15 applies:

15 Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, “This Man [a]receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 So He spoke this parable to them, saying:
4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ 7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine [b]just persons who need no repentance.

Yes, but this sheep is claiming it was never lost and was with you all along, which is a bit much if you've just gone out in the wilderness trying to find him.

Are you really @Big_G_NorthWales ’s keeper ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

Those were grim years being a Tory.

I was a Tory in London between 2000 and 2005, at times I felt like the only Tory in London.

Knocking up the voters was no fun then.

Maybe you should have used birth control?

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

kjh said:

@HYUFD on PT. Good response 'You may have done but you didn't' re atheists not doing all the stuff that religious groups did in the past. Can't disagree with that.

But maybe if there hadn't been religion and hence everyone whapping great buildings for god and pictures of god and jesus, etc, they would have turned their hands to something else creative. As it was all the creative lot had their hands full of all the religious commissions.

Also, the atheists tended to get barbecued as well, so they had two reasons to miss the religious commissions.

And also, only some religions went all out for idolatry and art (not quite the same thing). Some eschewed them, and to this day I find the bare austerity of many Presbyterian kirks calming.

As so often said on PB: dodgy conclusions come from inherently biased samples.

Maybe but if you want to see great art and sculpture you go to the Vatican or even the likes of St Paul's cathedral not a kirk.

You can be an atheist and still appreciate the artworks the Vatican has and commissioned even if the kirk is more pious in its worship

You can indeed appreciate them but of course one of the reasons they were there as because the Church had all the wealth and all the power. It is easy to get all the best artists when you are the only ones who can actually pay them.

There were some bankers, merchants and traders around even then but I don't see many of the most profitable corporations around today funding art and new buildings as much as the Church did then.

Plus even today it is the church and religious bodies providing soup kitchens and homeless shelters, not big corporations

Which ignores the billions being put into improving human life by people like Bill Gates.

And of course you are also wrong about most big corporations. One company I have contracted to regularly has been meeting its commitment to donate several hundred thousand pounds each year to local charities even when it was £2 billion in debt. Perhaps the big difference is that a lot of companies just get on and do it without making a song and dance about it.

Oh and the idea that the Church should be praised for commissioning all that art and architecture when they would happily have condemned and probably killed off anyone who did the same thing but without the religious connections is rather perverse. They were more than happy to destroy any great works of art that were not 'Christian'. The destruction of the Library of the Serapeum in Alexandria is just one small example.

Bill Gates is also given a cut of every vaccine given in the developing world he funds and is buying up vast amounts of land to increase his influence. Plus he was a companion of Epstein's, he is no saint.

Yes there are a few exceptions but Apple has a net worth of $2,450 billion, Microsoft of $2,160 billion, Amazon of $1,830 billion and Alphabet of $1,750 and even Facebook of $996 billion, far more than the Catholic church now has. None of them have given away percentage wise of their net worth anything like as much as the church has over the centuries.

The Library of the Serapeum was either destroyed by Roman soldiers or a mob rather than the Catholic church itself.

I am rather glad that Bill Gates is no Saint considering what many of the Christian Saints have done in the past. Not a bunch I would like to be associated with and frankly not much better than Osama Bin Laden. The early Christian Church - in fact the Church right up to the 18th century makes the Taliban looked positively enlightened by comparison.

And no, the Roman army protected the Library against the Christian mob who were then allowed to sack and destroy the place as the price for letting the pagans sheltering there leave without being slaughtered.

Just out of interest how do you think the church got all that wealth in the first place. It certainly wasn't through honest trade.

Most of the wars of the time were dynastic and inter nation rather than strictly led by the church as such. Of course by far the worst mass murderers of all time Mao and Stalin were both atheists.

As I said the destruction of the Library was a product of mob violence between Christian and non Christian elements on both sides. Indeed one source says pagans took captured Christians into the Serapeum, forced them to offer sacrifices to non Christian deities, tortured those that refused and offered blood sacrifices of the rest. So afterwards it is somewhat understandable if pagan images were destroyed, including with the assistance of Roman soldiers.

The church got wealth through tithes amongst other things, which tended to support good works in the parish, something which it is regrettable ended as it linked the parish and church community more closely together

You know the more I read of what you write (which is garbage most of the time I am afraid) the more I can see you as a supporter and apologist for Franco. You would have fitted right in with that Catholic Conservative ideology, violence and all.

I am a traditional Tory and proud to be so, including support for Crown, Church and the landed interest.

I am most certainly not a libertarian like you so no surprise you dislike most of what I write and yes not everything Franco did was bad. He kept Spain together and kept the Communists out for example

Most traditional Tories - and most who support Crown and Church - would be ashamed of being associated with you.

Given you are not a traditional Tory you cannot comment.

Even Churchill supported Franco in the 1930s to keep the Communists out of power in Spain.

Plus of course our sister party as Tories in Spain is the Popular Party which has Francoist origins

I find it interesting that you think you have the right to decide if someone is or is not a Traditional Tory - as in my personal opinion you are not a Conservative in any shape or form...

I just pop in to see @HYUFD talking utter garbage and traducing a large number of moderate conservative voters

You of course are a former New Labour voter rather than a loyal moderate Conservative voter

Your purity is so pathetic and you embarrass so many of us who have worked for the party over decades

You're polite BigG but, to be fair, I don't think you get to pull that argument given you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001.

I was working for the party throughout every one of those years. Every single one.

So you’re one of the exclusionary tendency, too ?

Unless you voted for Hague and Boris and May and Cameron you cannot call yourself a genuine Tory no.

Just as unless you voted for Blair and Brown and Corbyn and still back Labour under Starmer you cannot call yourself genuine Labour either.

If you do not fall in any of those categories you are really either a swing voter or a LD or Nationalist

Weirdo.