You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
And the UK, as well as other allies, declared war on Japan before the USA actually did!
That wasn't out of solidarity with the US but because Japan attacked British territories across Asia. The way even we tend to focus exclusively on Pearl Harbor is an indictment of our understanding of our own history.
Or of recognition that the strategic importance of Pearl Harbor in bringing America into the war is the vital point?
Former first deputy head of the Russian National Guard (Rosgvardiya), Colonel General Viktor Strigunov, has been arrested and placed in Moscow’s high-security Lefortovo detention center.
There's been quite a few deaths, sackings and arrests recently. Enough to qualify as a purge, or just random variation in the normal background rate of a mafia state?
Smells like a purge. They're not even taking the time to carry them up 10 storeys first.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
Rankin's batshittery is a good example of the horseshoe effect, they point at which hard left becomes hard right, and vice versa.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
And the UK, as well as other allies, declared war on Japan before the USA actually did!
That wasn't out of solidarity with the US but because Japan attacked British territories across Asia. The way even we tend to focus exclusively on Pearl Harbor is an indictment of our understanding of our own history.
Or of recognition that the strategic importance of Pearl Harbor in bringing America into the war is the vital point?
Didn’t we keep quiet about the expected attack on Pearl Harbor? - as Churchill knew we needed to get the USA fully committed to the war and it was the way to do so.
Asking because I expect your knowledge of WW2 history is vastly superior to mine
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
His comments directed @OldKingCole were out of order, and he is an embarrassment to decent conservatives
I do not understand why he post such nonsense and insults
Basildon of course voted for the 'undecent conservatives' ie Reform as you would put it even at the last GE when they were third nationally on votes. Now Reform would romp home there
There isn't a 'Basildon' seat as there was until 1997, Now the North of the town is combined with the ancient Essex town of Billericay, nowadays part of Basildon Council's area. Something, incidentally, the burghers of Billericay were aghast about when it happened! It has a Conservative MP, Richard Holden, and Reform were third.
The South half of the town is combined for parliamentary purposes with the East of Thurrock and that area has, I grant you, a Reform MP.
As I said most of the old Basildon seat is now held by McMurdock and most of the old Billericay seat is held by Holden
I didn't realise Holden had defected to Reform!
The old Basildon seat was, more or less, divided across the middle. Some of the area in the South of the town isn't built on; there are a couple of country parks. And a tip!
'Despite its long name, this new constituency is to the greatest extent the successor to the Basildon constituency.'
One of these days, when I've no paint to watch drying, I'll have a look at the ward populations. As I said the area of Basildon to the South of the A13 is largely uninhabited until one gets into Thurrock.
Ive had a look OKC
McMurdock has Langdon Hills, Nethermayne and Pitsea
Holden has Fryerns, Laindon Park, Lee Chapel, Vange which covers the town centre
The conspiracy crazies I follow on X all used to crow about how Trump was going to expose the likes of the Obamas, the Clintons, Gates and the rest of the libtards on the Epstein List. They're strangely quiet now....
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Even then I would love to know how the village gossips didn’t find out about it
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
Dammit, it might be a bit I am Spartacus, but I feel honour bound to confess my own tax dodging. I have an ISA. I've used salary sacrifice. I even paid in cash recently at the school fete and I bet the kid on the stall wasn't VAT registered And still I have the temerity to disagree with the government's tax and benefit policies.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians don't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
Believing in Jesus is like believing that Vikings wore horned helmets. A cool story, but no proof that it ever happened.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
The war was won by British intelligence, American steel and Russian blood, as the saying goes.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
The UK sent them a ton of kit, too. But, US trucks and jeeps were incredibly helpful. Victories that might have gained the Soviets an advance of 50 to 100 miles, were gaining them advances of double or thrice that, thanks to US mechanisation. US food was enormously helpful to the Soviets, too.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
Can't be the Arsenal of democracy. They ended up winning.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
His comments directed @OldKingCole were out of order, and he is an embarrassment to decent conservatives
I do not understand why he post such nonsense and insults
Basildon of course voted for the 'undecent conservatives' ie Reform as you would put it even at the last GE when they were third nationally on votes. Now Reform would romp home there
There isn't a 'Basildon' seat as there was until 1997, Now the North of the town is combined with the ancient Essex town of Billericay, nowadays part of Basildon Council's area. Something, incidentally, the burghers of Billericay were aghast about when it happened! It has a Conservative MP, Richard Holden, and Reform were third.
The South half of the town is combined for parliamentary purposes with the East of Thurrock and that area has, I grant you, a Reform MP.
As I said most of the old Basildon seat is now held by McMurdock and most of the old Billericay seat is held by Holden
I didn't realise Holden had defected to Reform!
The old Basildon seat was, more or less, divided across the middle. Some of the area in the South of the town isn't built on; there are a couple of country parks. And a tip!
'Despite its long name, this new constituency is to the greatest extent the successor to the Basildon constituency.'
One of these days, when I've no paint to watch drying, I'll have a look at the ward populations. As I said the area of Basildon to the South of the A13 is largely uninhabited until one gets into Thurrock.
Ive had a look OKC
McMurdock has Langdon Hills, Nethermayne and Pitsea
Holden has Fryerns, Laindon Park, Lee Chapel, Vange which covers the town centre
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
Rankin's batshittery is a good example of the horseshoe effect, they point at which hard left becomes hard right, and vice versa.
Three minor points are that Hawaii was not a US state until the 1950s, and had been subject to a US coup, and also that it is nowhere near the continental United States, about 2,000 miles away.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
It was truly brilliant of us to get the Japanese to take public credit for the attack.
There was Zero chance otherwise.
#subtlepunning
Do you really think there is any chance of someone Reisen to that miserable pun?
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
She surely couldn't have been virgo intact after giving birth.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
Can't be the Arsenal of democracy. They ended up winning.
The allied victory showed what man united can achieve.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
The challenge would have been the lack of time travel, given how long after the supposed events it was all made up and written down.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
Only for extremist secular atheists like you
Or objective historians
Uber leftist 'historians' who despise the western civilisation they have benefited from, maybe, objective historians no
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
Can't be the Arsenal of democracy. They ended up winning.
The allied victory showed what man united can achieve.
That's one of the best posts yet. On this topic anyway.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
She surely couldn't have been virgo intact after giving birth.
She remained a Virgin her whole life. Before, and after, the birth of Jesus, Is the doctrine.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
The UK sent them a ton of kit, too. But, US trucks and jeeps were incredibly helpful. Victories that might have gained the Soviets an advance of 50 to 100 miles, were gaining them advances of double or thrice that, thanks to US mechanisation. US food was enormously helpful to the Soviets, too.
Getting it there was no walk in the park, however. I’m looking out now over some of the waters they had to ship through, and it wasn’t often as calm and sunny as today.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
She surely couldn't have been virgo intact after giving birth.
Caesarean?
ETA: Though Mary surviving the procedure back then would have been a bona fide miracle
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians don't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
Believing in Jesus is like believing that Vikings wore horned helmets. A cool story, but no proof that it ever happened.
Not just the Bible, Tacitus, Josephus etc also attest his existence as do the vast majority of historians
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
Only for extremist secular atheists like you
Or objective historians
It's only cranks who dispute that there was a historical figure called Jesus. Obviously, there is plenty of dispute about what He intended and taught, let alone whether He was the son of God.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
The UK sent them a ton of kit, too. But, US trucks and jeeps were incredibly helpful. Victories that might have gained the Soviets an advance of 50 to 100 miles, were gaining them advances of double or thrice that, thanks to US mechanisation. US food was enormously helpful to the Soviets, too.
Getting it there was no walk in the park, however. I’m looking out now over some of the waters they had to ship through, and it wasn’t often as calm and sunny as today.
It wasn't. When I was young I knew an ex Merchant Navy chap who did a couple of those trips. The tales ....... etc.....
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
Can't be the Arsenal of democracy. They ended up winning.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
The challenge would have been the lack of time travel, given how long after the supposed events it was all made up and written down.
About 35 years after the events were the first gospel writings
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
The funny thing is that Jesus in the gospels is pretty damn woke. Shame his followers 2,000 years later don’t actually follow his teachings.
Yes his marching for Trans rights was well ahead of its time!
Your scorn proves my point. Gospel Jesus certainly would not have stood for the vilification of any groups of God’s children. Other than perhaps the rich.
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
One thing I didn't really know was how much kit the USA sent to the USSR during the war. For instance the Soviets had US jeeps at Stalingrad, less than a year after the USA joined the conflict. Its a given that some idiot will trot out the line about the Soviets giving their blood etc but it is really true that the USA was the Arsenal of Democracy (plus those nasty Communists who were really cuddly Uncle Joe's mob).
The UK sent them a ton of kit, too. But, US trucks and jeeps were incredibly helpful. Victories that might have gained the Soviets an advance of 50 to 100 miles, were gaining them advances of double or thrice that, thanks to US mechanisation. US food was enormously helpful to the Soviets, too.
My great uncle was part of (I think) 210 squadron, which provided cover to Arctic convoy ships taking huge quantities of *stuff* through the Arctic Ocean to Soviet north coast ports past occupied Norway. He wasn’t a man given to overstatement, but I got the impression being in the air for 24 hour stretches in freezing temperatures while being shot at by Germans wasn’t much fun. I think the RAF lost around 3000 pilots on the Arctic convoys. He (along with other surviving pilots) was awarded the Arctic Star medal in 2013.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
If modern paedophilia laws existed 1500 years ago nobody would be mentioning Mohammed if the age of Aisha is taken as her age pre-revisionism so all religions have questionable early stages.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.
That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
The challenge would have been the lack of time travel, given how long after the supposed events it was all made up and written down.
About 35 years after the events were the first gospel writings
That's about the time between the rise of Oasis and their comeback concerts. Sure, there'll be a few million extra folk who saw them live back in the day, but the essential story will be the same.
The funny thing is that Jesus in the gospels is pretty damn woke. Shame his followers 2,000 years later don’t actually follow his teachings.
Yes his marching for Trans rights was well ahead of its time!
Your scorn proves my point. Gospel Jesus certainly would not have stood for the vilification of any groups of God’s children. Other than perhaps the rich.
The Good Samaritan was pretty rich, Jesus was also pretty pro traditional marriage, against divorcees except on very limited grounds etc
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians don't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
Believing in Jesus is like believing that Vikings wore horned helmets. A cool story, but no proof that it ever happened.
Not just the Bible, Tacitus, Josephus etc also attest his existence as do the vast majority of historians
A history written sometimes hundreds of years after the alleged event by authors with a vested interest? I'm not buying it.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
The challenge would have been the lack of time travel, given how long after the supposed events it was all made up and written down.
About 35 years after the events were the first gospel writings
That's about the time between the rise of Oasis and their comeback concerts. Sure, there'll be a few million extra folk who saw them live back in the day, but the essential story will be the same.
And in the first century, oral tradition was the norm, indeed the very foundation of the early church
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
The funny thing is that Jesus in the gospels is pretty damn woke. Shame his followers 2,000 years later don’t actually follow his teachings.
Yes his marching for Trans rights was well ahead of its time!
Your scorn proves my point. Gospel Jesus certainly would not have stood for the vilification of any groups of God’s children. Other than perhaps the rich.
The Good Samaritan was pretty rich, Jesus was also pretty pro traditional marriage, against divorcees except on very limited grounds etc
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians don't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
Believing in Jesus is like believing that Vikings wore horned helmets. A cool story, but no proof that it ever happened.
Not just the Bible, Tacitus, Josephus etc also attest his existence as do the vast majority of historians
A history written sometimes hundreds of years after the alleged event by authors with a vested interest? I'm not buying it.
Tacitus and Josephus certainly weren't writing hundreds of years after Jesus and nor were the gospels written that late
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Jesus's recorded sayings are pretty clear on the matter. That there's often been a massive gap between Christian Values and the Values enacted by Christians is another issue.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians don't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
Believing in Jesus is like believing that Vikings wore horned helmets. A cool story, but no proof that it ever happened.
We know that Vikings didn't wear horned helmets. There's some evidence for a historical Jesus. I don't think it was unusual for people to claim to be the Messiah at the time, and what was unusual was that a sect believing in the divinity of one such Messiah survived and grew.
The funny thing is that Jesus in the gospels is pretty damn woke. Shame his followers 2,000 years later don’t actually follow his teachings.
Yes his marching for Trans rights was well ahead of its time!
Your scorn proves my point. Gospel Jesus certainly would not have stood for the vilification of any groups of God’s children. Other than perhaps the rich.
The Good Samaritan was pretty rich, Jesus was also pretty pro traditional marriage, against divorcees except on very limited grounds etc
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven
Have you seen the size of needles from those days? Bigger than the gates at Longleat.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Jesus's recorded sayings are pretty clear on the matter. That there's often been a massive gap between Christian Values and the Values enacted by Christians is another issue.
That is why although I cannot be certain that God doesn’t exist, I can be 100% certain that the God portrayed by organised religion does not exist. The disconnect is so vast that it makes the entire thing ludicrous.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Under Christian doctrine Jesus had no paternal parent, so a paternity test wouldn't have been much use. But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
The challenge would have been the lack of time travel, given how long after the supposed events it was all made up and written down.
About 35 years after the events were the first gospel writings
That's about the time between the rise of Oasis and their comeback concerts. Sure, there'll be a few million extra folk who saw them live back in the day, but the essential story will be the same.
And in the first century, oral tradition was the norm, indeed the very foundation of the early church
A key part of said tradition being to embellish and dramatise the stories being told, to enhance the prestige of the teller and the interest of the listeners. Chinese whispers is of course a real life phenomenon.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Jesus's recorded sayings are pretty clear on the matter. That there's often been a massive gap between Christian Values and the Values enacted by Christians is another issue.
Another rehash of the “if only communism had been implemented properly” stance?
Has Jezza actually announced a new party, or is he dithering again?
Jezza can win his own seat easily but that'll probably be it as far as his new party is concerned.
Leanne Mohamad is on board and could very well unseat Wes, and the four Gaza indies in his group have chances of defending their seats
The more immediate question is the degree to which any new party will fight seats at the London local elections next year. In boroughs like Newham and Redbridge, could we see these "Independents" become the official opposition to Labour or perhaps more?
Will, for example, the likes of WPGB, TUSC and others stand aside or unite behind a common slate of candidates? Will we see a single candidate for the Newham Mayoral election?
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Jesus's recorded sayings are pretty clear on the matter. That there's often been a massive gap between Christian Values and the Values enacted by Christians is another issue.
That is why although I cannot be certain that God doesn’t exist, I can be 100% certain that the God portrayed by organised religion does not exist. The disconnect is so vast that it makes the entire thing ludicrous.
That's why Gnosticism is the way to go. Personal relationship with God without the need for a priestly intercessor and get rid of the Yahweh character of the Old Testament as a figure of worship
The funny thing is that Jesus in the gospels is pretty damn woke. Shame his followers 2,000 years later don’t actually follow his teachings.
Yes his marching for Trans rights was well ahead of its time!
Your scorn proves my point. Gospel Jesus certainly would not have stood for the vilification of any groups of God’s children. Other than perhaps the rich.
The Good Samaritan was pretty rich, Jesus was also pretty pro traditional marriage, against divorcees except on very limited grounds etc
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven
Just emphasises divine grace decides salvation not material possessions
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Jesus's recorded sayings are pretty clear on the matter. That there's often been a massive gap between Christian Values and the Values enacted by Christians is another issue.
That is why although I cannot be certain that God doesn’t exist, I can be 100% certain that the God portrayed by organised religion does not exist. The disconnect is so vast that it makes the entire thing ludicrous.
That's why Gnosticism is the way to go. Personal relationship with God without the need for a priestly intercessor and get rid of the Yahweh character of the Old Testament as a figure of worship
Jesus literally is the God of the Old Testament via the Trinity
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
Has Jezza actually announced a new party, or is he dithering again?
Jezza can win his own seat easily but that'll probably be it as far as his new party is concerned.
Leanne Mohamad is on board and could very well unseat Wes, and the four Gaza indies in his group have chances of defending their seats
The more immediate question is the degree to which any new party will fight seats at the London local elections next year. In boroughs like Newham and Redbridge, could we see these "Independents" become the official opposition to Labour or perhaps more?
Will, for example, the likes of WPGB, TUSC and others stand aside or unite behind a common slate of candidates? Will we see a single candidate for the Newham Mayoral election?
I haven't seen anything from TUSC but Galloway has said WPGB will not be a part of the new party as they have very different LGTB,Trans and Ukraine views but would be prepared to do local deals on standing aside. I doubt George has the votes to make it remotely attractive to Corbyn. Galloway will focus on the Manchester and Lancs area and Birmingham I think in the longer term, hes just not got a toehold in London
Has Jezza actually announced a new party, or is he dithering again?
Jezza can win his own seat easily but that'll probably be it as far as his new party is concerned.
Leanne Mohamad is on board and could very well unseat Wes, and the four Gaza indies in his group have chances of defending their seats
The more immediate question is the degree to which any new party will fight seats at the London local elections next year. In boroughs like Newham and Redbridge, could we see these "Independents" become the official opposition to Labour or perhaps more?
Will, for example, the likes of WPGB, TUSC and others stand aside or unite behind a common slate of candidates? Will we see a single candidate for the Newham Mayoral election?
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
Rankin's batshittery is a good example of the horseshoe effect, they point at which hard left becomes hard right, and vice versa.
The main point of overlap is their contemptuous attitude to 'centrist dads'.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Jesus's recorded sayings are pretty clear on the matter. That there's often been a massive gap between Christian Values and the Values enacted by Christians is another issue.
That is why although I cannot be certain that God doesn’t exist, I can be 100% certain that the God portrayed by organised religion does not exist. The disconnect is so vast that it makes the entire thing ludicrous.
That's why Gnosticism is the way to go. Personal relationship with God without the need for a priestly intercessor and get rid of the Yahweh character of the Old Testament as a figure of worship
Jesus literally is the God of the Old Testament via the Trinity
In your religion, yes. Not in the Gnostic tradition.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Jesus's recorded sayings are pretty clear on the matter. That there's often been a massive gap between Christian Values and the Values enacted by Christians is another issue.
That is why although I cannot be certain that God doesn’t exist, I can be 100% certain that the God portrayed by organised religion does not exist. The disconnect is so vast that it makes the entire thing ludicrous.
That's why Gnosticism is the way to go. Personal relationship with God without the need for a priestly intercessor and get rid of the Yahweh character of the Old Testament as a figure of worship
Jesus literally is the God of the Old Testament via the Trinity
He is, but this doesn't nail him on the political spectrum. What would do that, the acid test, is if we knew how he would go about closing the deficit on the public finances. Specifically, would it be taxation or public spending taking the strain. We can't know and there's really no point speculating.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Jesus's recorded sayings are pretty clear on the matter. That there's often been a massive gap between Christian Values and the Values enacted by Christians is another issue.
That is why although I cannot be certain that God doesn’t exist, I can be 100% certain that the God portrayed by organised religion does not exist. The disconnect is so vast that it makes the entire thing ludicrous.
That's why Gnosticism is the way to go. Personal relationship with God without the need for a priestly intercessor and get rid of the Yahweh character of the Old Testament as a figure of worship
Jesus literally is the God of the Old Testament via the Trinity
In your religion, yes. Not in the Gnostic tradition.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
Only for extremist secular atheists like you
Or objective historians
I always feel awkward defending Hyufd, but on this point he is absolutely right and you and TwistedFireStopper are wrong. There is not one objective historian with relevant expertise who doubts the existence of Jesus. The only one who would come close is Robert M. Price, who doubts the existence of Jesus an is an historian of the relevant period *but* is also an extremist secular atheist.
Otherwise we have Raphael Lataster (not an historian and also an ESA) Richard Carrier (who has some training as an historian in a related period but is also an ESA and a noted conspiracy theorist) Earl Doherty (Ordinary BA in Canadian Studies from Carleton) Dorothy Murdoch (who believed the Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Greeks both spoke English) Tom Harpur (not an historian and also an ESA) and David Fitzgerald (who is not an historian, an ESA and memorably claimed that the reason he could provide no evidence for his thesis was that it made his self-published book too long).
I suppose we could add Thomas Brodie, who might just pass muster on not being an ESA because he's a Dominican friar, but most of his writings seem to have been informed by his - ahem - shall we say, excessive use of the elements?
The funny thing is that Jesus in the gospels is pretty damn woke. Shame his followers 2,000 years later don’t actually follow his teachings.
Yes his marching for Trans rights was well ahead of its time!
Your scorn proves my point. Gospel Jesus certainly would not have stood for the vilification of any groups of God’s children. Other than perhaps the rich.
The Good Samaritan was pretty rich, Jesus was also pretty pro traditional marriage, against divorcees except on very limited grounds etc
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven
Just emphasises divine grace decides salvation not material possessions
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
And the UK, as well as other allies, declared war on Japan before the USA actually did!
That wasn't out of solidarity with the US but because Japan attacked British territories across Asia. The way even we tend to focus exclusively on Pearl Harbor is an indictment of our understanding of our own history.
Or of recognition that the strategic importance of Pearl Harbor in bringing America into the war is the vital point?
Didn’t we keep quiet about the expected attack on Pearl Harbor? - as Churchill knew we needed to get the USA fully committed to the war and it was the way to do so.
Asking because I expect your knowledge of WW2 history is vastly superior to mine
I am not particularly an expert on the background to Pearl Harbor but as I remember the Americans were warned, but ignored the warning.
This wasn't unusual. The Soviets did much the same before Barbarossa five months earlier.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Jesus's recorded sayings are pretty clear on the matter. That there's often been a massive gap between Christian Values and the Values enacted by Christians is another issue.
That is why although I cannot be certain that God doesn’t exist, I can be 100% certain that the God portrayed by organised religion does not exist. The disconnect is so vast that it makes the entire thing ludicrous.
That's why Gnosticism is the way to go. Personal relationship with God without the need for a priestly intercessor and get rid of the Yahweh character of the Old Testament as a figure of worship
Jesus literally is the God of the Old Testament via the Trinity
In your religion, yes. Not in the Gnostic tradition.
Which is not a Christian tradition
Its not Judaeo-Christian certainly but it stems from the early Christian movement of the 1st century. Having a personal relationship with and knowledge of God does tend to rule out the Roman Empire Church on either side of the schism
Has Jezza actually announced a new party, or is he dithering again?
Jezza can win his own seat easily but that'll probably be it as far as his new party is concerned.
Leanne Mohamad is on board and could very well unseat Wes, and the four Gaza indies in his group have chances of defending their seats
The more immediate question is the degree to which any new party will fight seats at the London local elections next year. In boroughs like Newham and Redbridge, could we see these "Independents" become the official opposition to Labour or perhaps more?
Will, for example, the likes of WPGB, TUSC and others stand aside or unite behind a common slate of candidates? Will we see a single candidate for the Newham Mayoral election?
I haven't seen anything from TUSC but Galloway has said WPGB will not be a part of the new party as they have very different LGTB,Trans and Ukraine views but would be prepared to do local deals on standing aside. I doubt George has the votes to make it remotely attractive to Corbyn. Galloway will focus on the Manchester and Lancs area and Birmingham I think in the longer term, hes just not got a toehold in London
I'm losing track. Mr Gallowazzock has said that WPGB will not be part of the new party?
Is this Corbyn's new party, the Dried Grape faction, or something else that the WPGB won't be part of, either?
Why can't one of them just call one of the new parties the People's Front of the Zionist Entity, and another one the Silly Walks Party, then at last we all know part of the vocabulary?
Has Jezza actually announced a new party, or is he dithering again?
Jezza can win his own seat easily but that'll probably be it as far as his new party is concerned.
Leanne Mohamad is on board and could very well unseat Wes, and the four Gaza indies in his group have chances of defending their seats
The more immediate question is the degree to which any new party will fight seats at the London local elections next year. In boroughs like Newham and Redbridge, could we see these "Independents" become the official opposition to Labour or perhaps more?
Will, for example, the likes of WPGB, TUSC and others stand aside or unite behind a common slate of candidates? Will we see a single candidate for the Newham Mayoral election?
I haven't seen anything from TUSC but Galloway has said WPGB will not be a part of the new party as they have very different LGTB,Trans and Ukraine views but would be prepared to do local deals on standing aside. I doubt George has the votes to make it remotely attractive to Corbyn. Galloway will focus on the Manchester and Lancs area and Birmingham I think in the longer term, hes just not got a toehold in London
I'm losing track. Mr Gallowazzock has said that WPGB will not be part of the new party?
Is this Corbyn's new party, the Dried Grape faction, or something else that the WPGB won't be part of, either.
Why can't one of them just call one of the new parties the People's Front of the Zionist Entity?
Galloway will not join the New Corbyn/Sultana Fandango
Has Jezza actually announced a new party, or is he dithering again?
Jezza can win his own seat easily but that'll probably be it as far as his new party is concerned.
Leanne Mohamad is on board and could very well unseat Wes, and the four Gaza indies in his group have chances of defending their seats
The more immediate question is the degree to which any new party will fight seats at the London local elections next year. In boroughs like Newham and Redbridge, could we see these "Independents" become the official opposition to Labour or perhaps more?
Will, for example, the likes of WPGB, TUSC and others stand aside or unite behind a common slate of candidates? Will we see a single candidate for the Newham Mayoral election?
I haven't seen anything from TUSC but Galloway has said WPGB will not be a part of the new party as they have very different LGTB,Trans and Ukraine views but would be prepared to do local deals on standing aside. I doubt George has the votes to make it remotely attractive to Corbyn. Galloway will focus on the Manchester and Lancs area and Birmingham I think in the longer term, hes just not got a toehold in London
I'm losing track. Mr Gallowazzock has said that WPGB will not be part of the new party?
Is this Corbyn's new party, the Dried Grape faction, or something else that the WPGB won't be part of, either.
Why can't one of them just call one of the new parties the People's Front of the Zionist Entity?
Galloway will not join the New Corbyn/Sultana Fandango
Has Jezza actually announced a new party, or is he dithering again?
Jezza can win his own seat easily but that'll probably be it as far as his new party is concerned.
Leanne Mohamad is on board and could very well unseat Wes, and the four Gaza indies in his group have chances of defending their seats
The more immediate question is the degree to which any new party will fight seats at the London local elections next year. In boroughs like Newham and Redbridge, could we see these "Independents" become the official opposition to Labour or perhaps more?
Will, for example, the likes of WPGB, TUSC and others stand aside or unite behind a common slate of candidates? Will we see a single candidate for the Newham Mayoral election?
I haven't seen anything from TUSC but Galloway has said WPGB will not be a part of the new party as they have very different LGTB,Trans and Ukraine views but would be prepared to do local deals on standing aside. I doubt George has the votes to make it remotely attractive to Corbyn. Galloway will focus on the Manchester and Lancs area and Birmingham I think in the longer term, hes just not got a toehold in London
I'm losing track. Mr Gallowazzock has said that WPGB will not be part of the new party?
Is this Corbyn's new party, the Dried Grape faction, or something else that the WPGB won't be part of, either.
Why can't one of them just call one of the new parties the People's Front of the Zionist Entity?
Galloway will not join the New Corbyn/Sultana Fandango
That is one excellent portent for the new party then.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
Jesus was a Lefty.
No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative
He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.
But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!
Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman
It’s questionable whether he even existed.
If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
It's strange how the terms 'atheist', 'liberal' and 'leftist' are used interchangeably nowadays by elements of the Right. (Leon is another one who seems hazy about the distinction.) It's strange because there's a large Christian tradition in the Labour movement, while atheistic ultra-rationalism was often seen as a very conservative philosophy.
Comments
Rehabilitation of Stalin, plus "chronic illness" for Russia's economy - today's Russian papers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYpSTrusgEA
Also egg prices and DIY dentistry.
Asking because I expect your knowledge of WW2 history is vastly superior to mine
McMurdock has Langdon Hills, Nethermayne and Pitsea
Holden has Fryerns, Laindon Park, Lee Chapel, Vange which covers the town centre
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
I throw myself on your mercy.
But you wouldn't need one, you could have just checked whether Mary was virgo intacto if you wanted to be a doubting Thomas
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
Why's it always Thomas?
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
ETA: Though Mary surviving the procedure back then would have been a bona fide miracle
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
He (along with other surviving pilots) was awarded the Arctic Star medal in 2013.
Is the position
Will, for example, the likes of WPGB, TUSC and others stand aside or unite behind a common slate of candidates? Will we see a single candidate for the Newham Mayoral election?
I doubt George has the votes to make it remotely attractive to Corbyn. Galloway will focus on the Manchester and Lancs area and Birmingham I think in the longer term, hes just not got a toehold in London
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
Otherwise we have Raphael Lataster (not an historian and also an ESA) Richard Carrier (who has some training as an historian in a related period but is also an ESA and a noted conspiracy theorist) Earl Doherty (Ordinary BA in Canadian Studies from Carleton) Dorothy Murdoch (who believed the Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Greeks both spoke English) Tom Harpur (not an historian and also an ESA) and David Fitzgerald (who is not an historian, an ESA and memorably claimed that the reason he could provide no evidence for his thesis was that it made his self-published book too long).
I suppose we could add Thomas Brodie, who might just pass muster on not being an ESA because he's a Dominican friar, but most of his writings seem to have been informed by his - ahem - shall we say, excessive use of the elements?
This wasn't unusual. The Soviets did much the same before Barbarossa five months earlier.
Having a personal relationship with and knowledge of God does tend to rule out the Roman Empire Church on either side of the schism
Is this Corbyn's new party, the Dried Grape faction, or something else that the WPGB won't be part of, either?
Why can't one of them just call one of the new parties the People's Front of the Zionist Entity, and another one the Silly Walks Party, then at last we all know part of the vocabulary?