Interviewer: "Other countries experiencing democratic backsliding had opposition parties realize too late they were made irrelevant. Do you think that's the case with the Democrats?"
The GRU had a word to describe people like Trump, who desperately seek friendship with Russia and are thus easily manipulated by cynics in Russia: говноед. It means “shit-eater.” https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1902016041032511597
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
How was the framing though? Eg did Rogan ask him why he supports the far right in Germany?
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Interviewer: "Other countries experiencing democratic backsliding had opposition parties realize too late they were made irrelevant. Do you think that's the case with the Democrats?"
Not that it really makes much difference, the US is a 2 party system so if Trump's tariffs increase cost of living the Democrats will benefit regardless but if they create more jobs they won't
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
How was the framing though? Eg did Rogan ask him why he supports the far right in Germany?
I cant remember that - but I was listening while driving and needed to zone out a few times - I will probably listen again
Trump's 'peace deals' in Ukraine and Gaza are largely based on giving Putin and especially Netanyahu what they want, hence ceasefire is effectively over in latter and not even started in former
Interviewer: "Other countries experiencing democratic backsliding had opposition parties realize too late they were made irrelevant. Do you think that's the case with the Democrats?"
As I recall, the numbers for the Conservatives here aren’t much better. I expect if Badenoch were asked the same question as Schumer, she’d give the same response but she could no more agree with the premise of the question than Schumer. Parties can never admit publicly they are out of touch.
Just caught up with PMQs. Goodness me even when Badenoch has an open goal she makes every effort to nearly shoot it wide. Starmer had no real answers to some of her questions on NI and the wider economy but she can’t react to his responses and it allows him pithy comebacks.
She probably eked out a win but this is exactly her issue at PMQs - she should be leaving that sort of exchange triumphant and instead it’s all a bit meh.
Interviewer: "Other countries experiencing democratic backsliding had opposition parties realize too late they were made irrelevant. Do you think that's the case with the Democrats?"
As I recall, the numbers for the Conservatives here aren’t much better. I expect if Badenoch were asked the same question as Schumer, she’d give the same response but she could no more agree with the premise of the question than Schumer. Parties can never admit publicly they are out of touch.
Also it's a bit like one of those logic puzzles: to know you are out of touch requires that you are in touch at least enough to know you're out of touch...
Interviewer: "Other countries experiencing democratic backsliding had opposition parties realize too late they were made irrelevant. Do you think that's the case with the Democrats?"
By that definition the UK experienced democratic backsliding during the Blair era with an opposition that became irrelevant while the institutions were corrupted to ensure that even if they won power again, Blairism would continue uninterrupted.
Just caught up with PMQs. Goodness me even when Badenoch has an open goal she makes every effort to nearly shoot it wide. Starmer had no real answers to some of her questions on NI and the wider economy but she can’t react to his responses and it allows him pithy comebacks.
She probably eked out a win but this is exactly her issue at PMQs - she should be leaving that sort of exchange triumphant and instead it’s all a bit meh.
Your thinking is awry you assume she was going for a win. There are merely two sides....the politicians and their hangers on and the people
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Did Rogan actually ask Musk any difficult questions, or was it the 'conversational' format where the guest gets to put his view/bile?
FT: “Compare Tesla’s capital expenditure in the last six months of 2024 to its valuation of the assets that money was spent on, and $1.4bn appears to have gone astray.”
FT: “Compare Tesla’s capital expenditure in the last six months of 2024 to its valuation of the assets that money was spent on, and $1.4bn appears to have gone astray.”
Interviewer: "Other countries experiencing democratic backsliding had opposition parties realize too late they were made irrelevant. Do you think that's the case with the Democrats?"
By that definition the UK experienced democratic backsliding during the Blair era with an opposition that became irrelevant while the institutions were corrupted to ensure that even if they won power again, Blairism would continue uninterrupted.
The interviewer was not offering that as a definition of democratic backsliding. Blair and New Labour did not undermine democracy, the law or the institutions of the state, which is what happens with democratic backsliding, e.g. as with Trump now in the US. You're not stupid, william, you know this.
Interviewer: "Other countries experiencing democratic backsliding had opposition parties realize too late they were made irrelevant. Do you think that's the case with the Democrats?"
Just caught up with PMQs. Goodness me even when Badenoch has an open goal she makes every effort to nearly shoot it wide. Starmer had no real answers to some of her questions on NI and the wider economy but she can’t react to his responses and it allows him pithy comebacks.
She probably eked out a win but this is exactly her issue at PMQs - she should be leaving that sort of exchange triumphant and instead it’s all a bit meh.
Kemi is getting better at PMQs. Her problem today was not enough material so she could not move on after making her points. Probably she should have sat down early. Ed Davey used two questions effectively, including one on NICs that had already been asked by Kemi.
If I were Kemi, I might ask the Chief Whip to have a word with the Speaker about not letting PMQs turn into LotO-Qs.
FT: “Compare Tesla’s capital expenditure in the last six months of 2024 to its valuation of the assets that money was spent on, and $1.4bn appears to have gone astray.”
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
After dissing Montevideo as LITERALLY the most boring capital city in the world (spoiler: probably true) turns out my tour guide is LITERALLY the most interesting tour guide in history
After dissing Montevideo as LITERALLY the most boring capital city in the world (spoiler: probably true) turns out my tour guide is LITERALLY the most interesting tour guide in history
As much fun as the guy that takes you round the Seoul food markets and teaches you Korean drinking games ?
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not testify as planned in his corruption trial on Tuesday following Israel’s surprise attack on the Gaza Strip, which ended a two-month ceasefire.
In his request that the court cancel the hearing, Netanyahu said the prosecution had approved the motion.
“Hours ago, the IDF commenced a military operation in the Gaza Strip,” read the request. “This morning at 11 an urgent security consultation will take place that will include the prime minister, defense minister and heads of the IDF security apparatus.”
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
Thank you, Nigel. And I've done a reply on that thread. It's one of my better efforts even if I say so myself.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Unfortunately, his hamfisted cuts started killing people almost immediately, with deaths within a year estimated in the millions.
There are also questions about the constitutionality of his actions, with his legal status as DOGE pseudo-head not compatible with him firing workers nor interfering with agencies set up by Congress.
He also moved his plants from California to Texas due to loose labor laws and (planned to) have plants in China because - I paraphrase - "they work harder into the night and don't complain". So he's a unionbuster as well.
This also omits his preference for keeping multiple partners as baby producers, having them artificially inseminated to produce only male children, for reasons unstated but rumoured. His trans daughter theorises that this explains his rage at trans people as he considers her - again I paraphrase - "malfunctioning product".
Due to the mods' preferences and the Online Safety Act I will not address the rumours about why he no longer has sex with his partners nor why his launch site Starbase is less than two kilometers to the Mexican border.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
Israel has started another "ground operation" in Gaza.
Clearly, they never intended to vacate, and signed up to the peace agreement just to get the first batch of hostages back.
And Trump has said to do "whatever the hell" they want. He likes saying this sort of thing, I've noticed. Big tough man forged in the jungle of reality tv and property speculation with inherited money.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
There is no shame in a left-wing person employing the tax-breaks available to them, nor in a right-wing person using the NHS or claiming disability benefit if something happens to their health.
I invest all my money via an ISA. I've probably "earnt" more from my flat value increasing than I've saved from my salary. I'm a landlord. Together with my partner, we drive about 16,000 miles a year. I got on the housing ladder via a massive gift from parents. I fly quite a lot. In many ways, I'm my own worst nightmare.
I will continue to argue against my personal interest because I think that's what would be best for Scotland/UK/Earth as a whole. But until government policy reflects that, I'll do what works best for me personally, and don't really care what anyone else thinks.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Unfortunately, his hamfisted cuts started killing people almost immediately, with deaths within a year estimated in the millions.
There are also questions about the constitutionality of his actions, with his legal status as DOGE pseudo-head not compatible with him firing workers nor interfering with agencies set up by Congress.
He also moved his plants from California to Texas due to loose labor laws and (planned to) have plants in China because - I paraphrase - "they work harder into the night and don't complain". So he's a unionbuster as well.
This also omits his preference for keeping multiple partners as baby producers, having them artificially inseminated to produce only male children, for reasons unstated but rumoured. His trans daughter theorises that this explains his rage at trans people as he considers her - again I paraphrase - "malfunctioning product".
Due to the mods' preferences and the Online Safety Act I will not address the rumours about why he no longer has sex with his partners nor why his launch site Starbase is less than two kilometers to the Mexican border.
In short he's a [We get it - Ed]
The reason for Boca Chica is
1) lack of undeveloped areas on the Lower Eastern Seaboard* with azimuths that permit rocket launch. 2) congestion at the Cape 3) political arbitrage. Senator Shelby tried to have Falcon Heavy blocked from the Cape because he saw it as a threat to SLS.
*you generally want to launch rockets to the East with some component of North, from somewhere as near to the Equator as you can.
After dissing Montevideo as LITERALLY the most boring capital city in the world (spoiler: probably true) turns out my tour guide is LITERALLY the most interesting tour guide in history
As much fun as the guy that takes you round the Seoul food markets and teaches you Korean drinking games ?
Trump clearly doesn't care about Ukraine so the call with Putin wasn't the disaster from his point of view that the rest of us think it was.
Nevertheless I think he had some notion of being a consummate deal maker and everything would fall into place once he got involved. Blaming Canada for what happened suggests it didn't go quite as he expected.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Spectacular. Should have way more likes. Korm(a) on, PB!
Just caught up with PMQs. Goodness me even when Badenoch has an open goal she makes every effort to nearly shoot it wide. Starmer had no real answers to some of her questions on NI and the wider economy but she can’t react to his responses and it allows him pithy comebacks.
She probably eked out a win but this is exactly her issue at PMQs - she should be leaving that sort of exchange triumphant and instead it’s all a bit meh.
Kemi is getting better at PMQs. Her problem today was not enough material so she could not move on after making her points. Probably she should have sat down early. Ed Davey used two questions effectively, including one on NICs that had already been asked by Kemi.
If I were Kemi, I might ask the Chief Whip to have a word with the Speaker about not letting PMQs turn into LotO-Qs.
She shouldn't have to
Hoyle constantly reminded Sunak it was prime minsters questions which did not permit him to ask Starmer a question
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Unfortunately, his hamfisted cuts started killing people almost immediately, with deaths within a year estimated in the millions.
There are also questions about the constitutionality of his actions, with his legal status as DOGE pseudo-head not compatible with him firing workers nor interfering with agencies set up by Congress.
He also moved his plants from California to Texas due to loose labor laws and (planned to) have plants in China because - I paraphrase - "they work harder into the night and don't complain". So he's a unionbuster as well.
This also omits his preference for keeping multiple partners as baby producers, having them artificially inseminated to produce only male children, for reasons unstated but rumoured. His trans daughter theorises that this explains his rage at trans people as he considers her - again I paraphrase - "malfunctioning product".
Due to the mods' preferences and the Online Safety Act I will not address the rumours about why he no longer has sex with his partners nor why his launch site Starbase is less than two kilometers to the Mexican border.
In short he's a [We get it - Ed]
The reason for Boca Chica is
1) lack of undeveloped areas on the Lower Eastern Seaboard* with azimuths that permit rocket launch. 2) congestion at the Cape 3) political arbitrage. Senator Shelby tried to have Falcon Heavy blocked from the Cape because he saw it as a threat to SLS.
*you generally want to launch rockets to the East with some component of North, from somewhere as near to the Equator as you can.
What rubbish. It's only at Boca Chica because the Amazonoian Launch Complex was already busy...
I don't understand why these people are so petty and vindictive.
They’re shitstains, that’s why.
These are people so bigoted, they have to delete online references to women, blacks, and American Indians who fought bravely for the US (no doubt, they think the US fought on the wrong side in WWII).
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Just how relevant is the UN in today's world and is anyone even listening to them ?
Trump - Putin - Xi - Kim Jong Un are the new world order much to everyone's else's alarm and disquiet
Putin would say that it was the West that overturned the previous world order by sidelining the UN over Kosovo and Iraq.
There is an argument that Kosovo and Iraq did represent overreach by the West. You can see that with Russia using the recognition of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence to justify support for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, for example.
However, neither event overturned the world order, even if they nudged it. It's Trump who has done that.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Unfortunately, his hamfisted cuts started killing people almost immediately, with deaths within a year estimated in the millions.
There are also questions about the constitutionality of his actions, with his legal status as DOGE pseudo-head not compatible with him firing workers nor interfering with agencies set up by Congress.
He also moved his plants from California to Texas due to loose labor laws and (planned to) have plants in China because - I paraphrase - "they work harder into the night and don't complain". So he's a unionbuster as well.
This also omits his preference for keeping multiple partners as baby producers, having them artificially inseminated to produce only male children, for reasons unstated but rumoured. His trans daughter theorises that this explains his rage at trans people as he considers her - again I paraphrase - "malfunctioning product".
Due to the mods' preferences and the Online Safety Act I will not address the rumours about why he no longer has sex with his partners nor why his launch site Starbase is less than two kilometers to the Mexican border.
In short he's a [We get it - Ed]
The reason for Boca Chica is
1) lack of undeveloped areas on the Lower Eastern Seaboard* with azimuths that permit rocket launch. 2) congestion at the Cape 3) political arbitrage. Senator Shelby tried to have Falcon Heavy blocked from the Cape because he saw it as a threat to SLS.
*you generally want to launch rockets to the East with some component of North, from somewhere as near to the Equator as you can.
What rubbish. It's only at Boca Chica because the Amazonoian Launch Complex was already busy...
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Spectacular. Should have way more likes. Korm(a) on, PB!
It wasn't that good. Let's just tikka moment to reflect here.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
After dissing Montevideo as LITERALLY the most boring capital city in the world (spoiler: probably true) turns out my tour guide is LITERALLY the most interesting tour guide in history
As much fun as the guy that takes you round the Seoul food markets and teaches you Korean drinking games ?
TBH that sounds fantastic.
If you ever visit Seoul (or Busan) definitely worth it.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Joe Rogan too spicy for you?
He's as madras a fish.
I don't know what he talks a balti..
Goes on for hours, though. Enough to biryani interest I might have in the subject.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Unfortunately, his hamfisted cuts started killing people almost immediately, with deaths within a year estimated in the millions.
There are also questions about the constitutionality of his actions, with his legal status as DOGE pseudo-head not compatible with him firing workers nor interfering with agencies set up by Congress.
He also moved his plants from California to Texas due to loose labor laws and (planned to) have plants in China because - I paraphrase - "they work harder into the night and don't complain". So he's a unionbuster as well.
This also omits his preference for keeping multiple partners as baby producers, having them artificially inseminated to produce only male children, for reasons unstated but rumoured. His trans daughter theorises that this explains his rage at trans people as he considers her - again I paraphrase - "malfunctioning product".
Due to the mods' preferences and the Online Safety Act I will not address the rumours about why he no longer has sex with his partners nor why his launch site Starbase is less than two kilometers to the Mexican border.
In short he's a [We get it - Ed]
The reason for Boca Chica is
1) lack of undeveloped areas on the Lower Eastern Seaboard* with azimuths that permit rocket launch. 2) congestion at the Cape 3) political arbitrage. Senator Shelby tried to have Falcon Heavy blocked from the Cape because he saw it as a threat to SLS.
*you generally want to launch rockets to the East with some component of North, from somewhere as near to the Equator as you can.
What rubbish. It's only at Boca Chica because the Amazonoian Launch Complex was already busy...
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Spectacular. Should have way more likes. Korm(a) on, PB!
It wasn't that good. Let's just tikka moment to reflect here.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Unfortunately, his hamfisted cuts started killing people almost immediately, with deaths within a year estimated in the millions.
There are also questions about the constitutionality of his actions, with his legal status as DOGE pseudo-head not compatible with him firing workers nor interfering with agencies set up by Congress.
He also moved his plants from California to Texas due to loose labor laws and (planned to) have plants in China because - I paraphrase - "they work harder into the night and don't complain". So he's a unionbuster as well.
This also omits his preference for keeping multiple partners as baby producers, having them artificially inseminated to produce only male children, for reasons unstated but rumoured. His trans daughter theorises that this explains his rage at trans people as he considers her - again I paraphrase - "malfunctioning product".
Due to the mods' preferences and the Online Safety Act I will not address the rumours about why he no longer has sex with his partners nor why his launch site Starbase is less than two kilometers to the Mexican border.
In short he's a [We get it - Ed]
The reason for Boca Chica is
1) lack of undeveloped areas on the Lower Eastern Seaboard* with azimuths that permit rocket launch. 2) congestion at the Cape 3) political arbitrage. Senator Shelby tried to have Falcon Heavy blocked from the Cape because he saw it as a threat to SLS.
*you generally want to launch rockets to the East with some component of North, from somewhere as near to the Equator as you can.
What rubbish. It's only at Boca Chica because the Amazonoian Launch Complex was already busy...
After dissing Montevideo as LITERALLY the most boring capital city in the world (spoiler: probably true) turns out my tour guide is LITERALLY the most interesting tour guide in history
As much fun as the guy that takes you round the Seoul food markets and teaches you Korean drinking games ?
TBH that sounds fantastic.
If you ever visit Seoul (or Busan) definitely worth it.
Since we spent a few days in Malaysia at the start of 2024 my wife has a real desire to explore more of that region and when she retires we will. South Korea is definitely on the agenda.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Joe Rogan too spicy for you?
He's as madras a fish.
I don't know what he talks a balti..
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night. Most pleasant.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
Judge Boasberg's ongoing legal Jujitso against the Trumpski DOJ is fascinating
It's possible that the DOJ lawyers are not up to the task, or they knew they were already fucked when Stephen Miller dropped this in their laps and are just flailing wildly in the hope someone else screws up worse
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
Taking what you are entitled even though you disagree with the scheme in general does not make you a hypocrite. I disagreed with Sunak's largesse during Covid, for example, but I still claimed what I was entitled to. That's not hypocritical - I was still against the giveaways, and still am. I'm also not a mug and have family that I am responsible for.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Of course I meant Joe Rogan....I was thinking about curry....
Joe Rogan too spicy for you?
He's as madras a fish.
I don't know what he talks a balti..
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night. Most pleasant.
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
Similarly if I had work health care (I never did) I would not turn it down on principle even though I am not a fan (although I wouldn't ban it).
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
I don't really see how one can separate his various Trumpian interventions from the rest of him though. He's chosen to make that political side of him a huge part of his time and attention, and trolling people online like a 14 year old speaks against how sensible and balanced he is.
It also makes the occasional excuse that he is just awkward that some people use pretty phony - he may well be awkward, but he's clearly capable of being measured, articulate and balanced when he chooses to be, so his other behaviour is deliberate.
I've seen a lot of comments online with Canadian conservatives seizing on Trump talking about it being easier to deal with the Liberals. It all feels rather desperate from them, they are clearly extremely worried.
SCOOP: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is facing more calls to step aside than have previously been reported, with the possibility of more soon to come, Axios has learned.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
Pagan2, you put things more classily than Nigel!
Not actually believe it not having a go, I have things I don't believe I should do therefore I don't even if its legal, conversely I will also do things I think are moral even if the law says its illegal.
My personal view is we should stick to what we believe is moral despite what the law claims. An unpopular view I am sure. I just don't think I disagree with this but its legal so will do it because I can is an excuse.
I gave up my car even though I can legally drive one and use public transport for example. I could probably afford better holidays by flying to spain on package holidays which is quite legal....however I don't I don't buy anything more than I actually need...my mobile for example I get a second hand from cex when the old one breaks I don't claim benefits unless I actually need them (3 months worth since 1987) eligble for at lot more than that over the years if I signed on everytime I have been made redundant
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
I think it is nonsense provided you have taken reasonable commonsense precautions.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
SCOOP: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is facing more calls to step aside than have previously been reported, with the possibility of more soon to come, Axios has learned.
Anyone who like myself though Kendall's speech to be disgusting and cruel needs to listen to Daniel on Tom Swarbrick's LBC show from yesterday. He played It again today. It changed my mind
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
Taking what you are entitled even though you disagree with the scheme in general does not make you a hypocrite. I disagreed with Sunak's largesse during Covid, for example, but I still claimed what I was entitled to. That's not hypocritical - I was still against the giveaways, and still am. I'm also not a mug and have family that I am responsible for.
Yes. There'd be few non-hypocrites other than saints otherwise.
I mean you can use the term as it's being directed against me here, ie in what I'm calling that "sloppy" sense, but then it loses its power somewhat (since it catches almost everyone). So I try to stick to the more precise usage.
Hey, I backed Spaun at 180 for the Players. Talk about nearly.
I made a chicken balti on Monday. Ate it last night.
OK, random food safety tangent...
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
Each time the food is cooled and then re-heated, you increase the chance of bacterial growth, so you should minimise how often you re-heat. The NHS, I believe, recommends only doing so once. However, that may be an overly cautious stance.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
Using however private health to get that drug is not taking away from others, kinablu going down the limited company route definitely is because he is depriving the state of money it would otherwise have to spend. I as a right winger could have done that easily too...I chose not too and pay my way
As a right wing person I think the state is bloated and spends too much, democracy disagreed with it I did my bit....Kinablu thinks the state isn't big enough and needs more money....when he had the choice he chose not to pay his fair tax
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
Similarly if I had work health care (I never did) I would not turn it down on principle even though I am not a fan (although I wouldn't ban it).
Yes. There are shades (as kle4 is teasing out like only he can) but there's a clear general broadbrush, I think.
If somebody makes a big deal of saying certain behaviour is wrong, implying they are a better person than those engaging in it, whilst at the same time doing it themselves, said person is a hypocrite (on that topic).
The most common example that leaps to mind are "family values" politicians or preachers who turn out to be up to their armpits in vice.
Comments
Agree: 64%
Disagree: 34%
AtlasIntel / March 12, 2025 / n=2550
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1902151309567951160
Oh crap.
Interviewer: "Other countries experiencing democratic backsliding had opposition parties realize too late they were made irrelevant. Do you think that's the case with the Democrats?"
Schumer: "No."
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1902115968463106239
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1902016041032511597
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
https://andrewspreviews.substack.com/p/previewing-the-three-rivers-and-harborough
She probably eked out a win but this is exactly her issue at PMQs - she should be leaving that sort of exchange triumphant and instead it’s all a bit meh.
FT: “Compare Tesla’s capital expenditure in the last six months of 2024 to its valuation of the assets that money was spent on, and $1.4bn appears to have gone astray.”
@financialtimes.com
$TSLA
https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3lkqh4zqk2c2b
“I myself don’t give away anything for nothing,” Pelosi told reporters in San Francisco on Tuesday. “I think that’s what happened the other day.”
https://x.com/ccadelago/status/1902127296930312280
"Democrats are facing a crisis of leadership"
Agree: 83%
Disagree: 12%
AtlasIntel / March 12, 2025 / n=2550
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1902151138289553448
If I were Kemi, I might ask the Chief Whip to have a word with the Speaker about not letting PMQs turn into LotO-Qs.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
Trump admin didn't only stop the program that was helping to locate kidnapped Ukrainian kids, but deleted the years of research.
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1902118800394236118
Netanyahu’s testimony in graft trial canceled for the day amid shock Gaza offensive
PM says prosecutors approved cancellation due to ‘urgent security consultation’ following resumption of hostilities
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahus-testimony-in-graft-trial-canceled-for-the-day-amid-shock-gaza-offensive/
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not testify as planned in his corruption trial on Tuesday following Israel’s surprise attack on the Gaza Strip, which ended a two-month ceasefire.
In his request that the court cancel the hearing, Netanyahu said the prosecution had approved the motion.
“Hours ago, the IDF commenced a military operation in the Gaza Strip,” read the request. “This morning at 11 an urgent security consultation will take place that will include the prime minister, defense minister and heads of the IDF security apparatus.”
https://x.com/NickKristof/status/1900869145685836189
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/15/opinion/foreign-aid-cuts-impact.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4E4.H8Lx.GD39rucUfloD&smid=url-share
There are also questions about the constitutionality of his actions, with his legal status as DOGE pseudo-head not compatible with him firing workers nor interfering with agencies set up by Congress.
He also moved his plants from California to Texas due to loose labor laws and (planned to) have plants in China because - I paraphrase - "they work harder into the night and don't complain". So he's a unionbuster as well.
This also omits his preference for keeping multiple partners as baby producers, having them artificially inseminated to produce only male children, for reasons unstated but rumoured. His trans daughter theorises that this explains his rage at trans people as he considers her - again I paraphrase - "malfunctioning product".
Due to the mods' preferences and the Online Safety Act I will not address the rumours about why he no longer has sex with his partners nor why his launch site Starbase is less than two kilometers to the Mexican border.
In short he's a [We get it - Ed]
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
I invest all my money via an ISA. I've probably "earnt" more from my flat value increasing than I've saved from my salary. I'm a landlord. Together with my partner, we drive about 16,000 miles a year. I got on the housing ladder via a massive gift from parents. I fly quite a lot. In many ways, I'm my own worst nightmare.
I will continue to argue against my personal interest because I think that's what would be best for Scotland/UK/Earth as a whole. But until government policy reflects that, I'll do what works best for me personally, and don't really care what anyone else thinks.
1) lack of undeveloped areas on the Lower Eastern Seaboard* with azimuths that permit rocket launch.
2) congestion at the Cape
3) political arbitrage. Senator Shelby tried to have Falcon Heavy blocked from the Cape because he saw it as a threat to SLS.
*you generally want to launch rockets to the East with some component of North, from somewhere as near to the Equator as you can.
Nevertheless I think he had some notion of being a consummate deal maker and everything would fall into place once he got involved. Blaming Canada for what happened suggests it didn't go quite as he expected.
Hoyle constantly reminded Sunak it was prime minsters questions which did not permit him to ask Starmer a question
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Just how relevant is the UN in today's world and is anyone even listening to them ?
Trump - Putin - Xi - Kim Jong Un are the new world order much to everyone's else's alarm and disquiet
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/Amazonian_Launch_Complex
These are people so bigoted, they have to delete online references to women, blacks, and American Indians who fought bravely for the US (no doubt, they think the US fought on the wrong side in WWII).
However, neither event overturned the world order, even if they nudged it. It's Trump who has done that.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Enough to biryani interest I might have in the subject.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YmMMp__O0s
*OG Drax
It's possible that the DOJ lawyers are not up to the task, or they knew they were already fucked when Stephen Miller dropped this in their laps and are just flailing wildly in the hope someone else screws up worse
I happened upon a social media post from somebody who was outraged. They had made a large pot of something containing meat, ragu perhaps. The next day their flatmate reheated the entire large pot while eating only a small portion, and now they "would have to throw the rest away, because you can only heat meat twice for food safety"
Is that a thing?
I think I regularly heat cooked meat more than twice. Am I a daredevil dicing with death, or is this nonsense?
Similarly if I had work health care (I never did) I would not turn it down on principle even though I am not a fan (although I wouldn't ban it).
It also makes the occasional excuse that he is just awkward that some people use pretty phony - he may well be awkward, but he's clearly capable of being measured, articulate and balanced when he chooses to be, so his other behaviour is deliberate.
SCOOP: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is facing more calls to step aside than have previously been reported, with the possibility of more soon to come, Axios has learned.
https://x.com/axios/status/1902407033585840461
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
My personal view is we should stick to what we believe is moral despite what the law claims. An unpopular view I am sure. I just don't think I disagree with this but its legal so will do it because I can is an excuse.
I gave up my car even though I can legally drive one and use public transport for example.
I could probably afford better holidays by flying to spain on package holidays which is quite legal....however I don't
I don't buy anything more than I actually need...my mobile for example I get a second hand from cex when the old one breaks
I don't claim benefits unless I actually need them (3 months worth since 1987) eligble for at lot more than that over the years if I signed on everytime I have been made redundant
https://youtu.be/72pl3rKWe9M?si=BciOLQ47UR1CPkVS
I mean you can use the term as it's being directed against me here, ie in what I'm calling that "sloppy" sense, but then it loses its power somewhat (since it catches almost everyone). So I try to stick to the more precise usage.
Hey, I backed Spaun at 180 for the Players. Talk about nearly.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
Where do you draw this line?
As a right wing person I think the state is bloated and spends too much, democracy disagreed with it I did my bit....Kinablu thinks the state isn't big enough and needs more money....when he had the choice he chose not to pay his fair tax
If somebody makes a big deal of saying certain behaviour is wrong, implying they are a better person than those engaging in it, whilst at the same time doing it themselves, said person is a hypocrite (on that topic).
The most common example that leaps to mind are "family values" politicians or preachers who turn out to be up to their armpits in vice.