politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Doing “Best PM” comparisons between Corbyn & Dave is like
Comments
-
That is why the House of Lords is not tradition bound to let this through. By hiding the tax credit cuts from the manifesto, HoL can deliver a blow.TheKrakenAwakes said:
Tell me...why do you think the tax credits weren't in the Tory manifesto...why do you think that Cameron and Gove lied about plans to cut tax credits. Was it accidental or was it a deliberate attempt to misguide the electorate? If they'd been honest they wouldn't have won aBig_G_NorthWales said:
You really do take the biscuitTheKrakenAwakes said:
24% and elected on the back of a bunch of liesBig_G_NorthWales said:
RubbishTheKrakenAwakes said:
What he's saying is that they have no mandateBig_G_NorthWales said:
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected governmentPClipp said:
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?taffys said:I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
majority.0 -
Only to themselves - Osborne will still change tax credits even if through the autumn statement or the next budgetsurbiton said:
That is why the House of Lords is not tradition bound to let this through. By hiding the tax credit cuts from the manifesto, HoL can deliver a blow.TheKrakenAwakes said:
Tell me...why do you think the tax credits weren't in the Tory manifesto...why do you think that Cameron and Gove lied about plans to cut tax credits. Was it accidental or was it a deliberate attempt to misguide the electorate? If they'd been honest they wouldn't have won aBig_G_NorthWales said:
You really do take the biscuitTheKrakenAwakes said:
24% and elected on the back of a bunch of liesBig_G_NorthWales said:
RubbishTheKrakenAwakes said:
What he's saying is that they have no mandateBig_G_NorthWales said:
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected governmentPClipp said:
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?taffys said:I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
majority.0 -
"They stated clearly" - Michael Gove, Radio 4, 29 April 2015 "we are not going to cut tax credits" How clearer could that be?Big_G_NorthWales said:
They stated clearly they would reduce welfare by billions - and labour never had nor never will have any trust from the electorate on welfare or the economyTheKrakenAwakes said:
Tell me...why do you think the tax credits weren't in the Tory manifesto...why do you think that Cameron and Gove lied about plans to cut tax credits. Was it accidental or was it a deliberate attempt to misguide the electorate? If they'd been honest they wouldn't have won aBig_G_NorthWales said:
You really do take the biscuitTheKrakenAwakes said:
24% and elected on the back of a bunch of liesBig_G_NorthWales said:
RubbishTheKrakenAwakes said:
What he's saying is that they have no mandateBig_G_NorthWales said:
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected governmentPClipp said:
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?taffys said:I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
majority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02q82yj0 -
Only if in the budget will it go through. By that time this will be discussed again and again. It requires only 8 MPs to rebel. The DUP will not back the government on this one.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Only to themselves - Osborne will still change tax credits even if through the autumn statement or the next budgetsurbiton said:
That is why the House of Lords is not tradition bound to let this through. By hiding the tax credit cuts from the manifesto, HoL can deliver a blow.TheKrakenAwakes said:
Tell me...why do you think the tax credits weren't in the Tory manifesto...why do you think that Cameron and Gove lied about plans to cut tax credits. Was it accidental or was it a deliberate attempt to misguide the electorate? If they'd been honest they wouldn't have won aBig_G_NorthWales said:
You really do take the biscuitTheKrakenAwakes said:
24% and elected on the back of a bunch of liesBig_G_NorthWales said:
RubbishTheKrakenAwakes said:
What he's saying is that they have no mandateBig_G_NorthWales said:
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected governmentPClipp said:
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?taffys said:I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
majority.0 -
-
elected majority = effective mandate. Were it otherwise a parliament could only last a few months.TheKrakenAwakes said:
What he's saying is that they have no mandateBig_G_NorthWales said:
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected governmentPClipp said:
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?taffys said:I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
0 -
It will go through but with some tweaks maybe.surbiton said:
Only if in the budget will it go through. By that time this will be discussed again and again. It requires only 8 MPs to rebel. The DUP will not back the government on this one.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Only to themselves - Osborne will still change tax credits even if through the autumn statement or the next budgetsurbiton said:
That is why the House of Lords is not tradition bound to let this through. By hiding the tax credit cuts from the manifesto, HoL can deliver a blow.TheKrakenAwakes said:
Tell me...why do you think the tax credits weren't in the Tory manifesto...why do you think that Cameron and Gove lied about plans to cut tax credits. Was it accidental or was it a deliberate attempt to misguide the electorate? If they'd been honest they wouldn't have won aBig_G_NorthWales said:
You really do take the biscuitTheKrakenAwakes said:
24% and elected on the back of a bunch of liesBig_G_NorthWales said:
RubbishTheKrakenAwakes said:
What he's saying is that they have no mandateBig_G_NorthWales said:
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected governmentPClipp said:
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?taffys said:I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
majority.0 -
What he's saying is that he disagrees with the election result.TheKrakenAwakes said:
What he's saying is that they have no mandateBig_G_NorthWales said:
Are you really saying it is not a democratically elected governmentPClipp said:
When you say, Mr Taffys, "a new democratically elected government", are you referring to Mr Cameron´s governemnt, which could not even get 25% of the electorate to vote for them?taffys said:I see the opposition are planning to block the measures of a new democratically elected government with a fresh mandate by using the lords against tax credit cuts.
0 -
Corbyn is clearly doing it on purpose. He actually does not want Labour to be successful. Maybe his thinking is that without a credible alternative to the Tories the proletariat will take to the streets.
Of course, the real reason for the Milne appointment is to drive moderates out of Labour. This is a powerful statement that there will be no compromise. The party is moving to the hard, hard left of the spectrum.0 -
Here’s what Sam Bowman, Deputy Director of the Adam Smith Institute had to say.
Working tax credits are the best form of welfare we have, and cutting them would be a huge mistake. The government has long claimed to want to make work pay for everyone, but cutting tax credits would disincentivise work and hurt those at the bottom of society.
Contrary to the government’s claims, the National Living Wage will do little to help those affected by these cuts and, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it risks adding insult to injury by pricing tens of thousands of workers out of the labour market altogether.
There is little evidence that tax credits ‘subsidise’ employers, except to the extent that they make more people willing to work in the first place, creating a larger pool of workers. The politics of this looks dangerous, too: when it’s working families at the bottom of the income distribution that are being hit hardest, it’s hard to say that we are ‘all in this together’. We urge the Chancellor to rethink these cuts and find savings elsewhere instead.
Pretty strong words from a free-market think tank.0 -
I think there's quite a lot of evidence that creationism is utter tosh and so far as science presently takes us, much evidence that there is not a suipernatural being who looks after us from on high. Which institutions have an almost unerring tendency to challenge scientific fact which looks inconvenient to its teachings, starting with flat- earthism as you put it?Luckyguy1983 said:
'I can't see it or measure it so it definitely doesn't exist' is hardly what I would call evidence. On the contrary, it smacks of extraordinarily unenquiring flat-earthism.ReggieCide said:
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.
Dawkins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He doesn't disbelieve in God, he is angry with God - on a mission against God. That's what militant atheists are - people locked in their own internal struggle with spirituality.
Your last pargraph speaks only to your self doubt. You really must have faith.0 -
That's a fairly typical vote pattern for this parliament.dr_spyn said:Government narrowly wins the vote for tax credit cuts with 317 votes to 295 http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-10-20/tory-mp-warns-party-over-planned-tax-credit-cuts/ …
The Government can get its measures through unless there is a serious Tory rebellion. I expect the revised EVEL proposals - when they eventually come back - will go through ok, as should the HRA reform. It's the threat of opposition defeat that binds the Tories together, except on Europe where normal rules are suspensed.
Fox hunting will be a problem unless the Government can EVEL it or avoid a parliamentary vote.0 -
If you missed Heidi Allen’s stunning maiden speech, we assure you it’s well worth catching up with.
She used her first speech to the House of Commons...to basically savage George Osborne over tax credits.0 -
Joining @jeremycorbyn's office next week as @UKLabour strategy & communications director, on leave from @guardian bit.ly/1kn0XAW0
-
Isn't that a majority larger than the Tory majority yet again?Barnesian said:Labour motion defeated.
317 to 295 Maj 22
How many Tory abstentions?
Anyone who says 24% voted Tory is a dishonest liar. There isn't a single country in the world that counts non-voters as votes and there isn't a single electoral system in the world that is proportional including non-voters. The only honest way to report votes is as a percentage of votes - people who don't care enough to take 2 minutes of their day and vote one way or another simply don't count.0 -
Most of this stems from the fact that the ASI are opposed to a minimum wage, despite the lack of evidence that the original fears concerning the pricing out of employees were in any sense well founded.bigjohnowls said:Here’s what Sam Bowman, Deputy Director of the Adam Smith Institute had to say.
Working tax credits are the best form of welfare we have, and cutting them would be a huge mistake. The government has long claimed to want to make work pay for everyone, but cutting tax credits would disincentivise work and hurt those at the bottom of society.
Contrary to the government’s claims, the National Living Wage will do little to help those affected by these cuts and, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it risks adding insult to injury by pricing tens of thousands of workers out of the labour market altogether.
There is little evidence that tax credits ‘subsidise’ employers, except to the extent that they make more people willing to work in the first place, creating a larger pool of workers. The politics of this looks dangerous, too: when it’s working families at the bottom of the income distribution that are being hit hardest, it’s hard to say that we are ‘all in this together’. We urge the Chancellor to rethink these cuts and find savings elsewhere instead.
Pretty strong words from a free-market think tank.0 -
Milne's views are out there for all to see - there must be a stack of Guardian columns to work through.SouthamObserver said:Corbyn is clearly doing it on purpose. He actually does not want Labour to be successful. Maybe his thinking is that without a credible alternative to the Tories the proletariat will take to the streets.
Of course, the real reason for the Milne appointment is to drive moderates out of Labour. This is a powerful statement that there will be no compromise. The party is moving to the hard, hard left of the spectrum.
I imagine Tory HQ have never bothered to, because they couldn't have believed he'd be appointed. This will change, of course.
He certainly doesn't represent the political mainstream of this country. He doesn't even represent the mainstream of the Labour party (at least at a parliamentary level). He really is in the "proletariat will seize power by the street, not the ballot box" camp.
With all that in mind, this is an astonishing appointment.0 -
I would guess that Dawkins has more conviction in his religious beliefs than most British believers. Most of us are open to the idea that we could be wrong.0
-
I am now on the right of the party by the looks of it.MyBurningEars said:
Milne's views are out there for all to see - there must be a stack of Guardian columns to work through.SouthamObserver said:Corbyn is clearly doing it on purpose. He actually does not want Labour to be successful. Maybe his thinking is that without a credible alternative to the Tories the proletariat will take to the streets.
Of course, the real reason for the Milne appointment is to drive moderates out of Labour. This is a powerful statement that there will be no compromise. The party is moving to the hard, hard left of the spectrum.
I imagine Tory HQ have never bothered to, because they couldn't have believed he'd be appointed. This will change, of course.
He certainly doesn't represent the political mainstream of this country. He doesn't even represent the mainstream of the Labour party (at least at a parliamentary level). He really is in the "proletariat will seize power by the street, not the ballot box" camp.
With all that in mind, this is an astonishing appointment.0 -
The ASI like them because they're close to Friedman's negative income tax.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Most of this stems from the fact that the ASI are opposed to a minimum wage, despite the lack of evidence that the original fears concerning the pricing out of employees were in any sense well founded.bigjohnowls said:Here’s what Sam Bowman, Deputy Director of the Adam Smith Institute had to say.
Working tax credits are the best form of welfare we have, and cutting them would be a huge mistake. The government has long claimed to want to make work pay for everyone, but cutting tax credits would disincentivise work and hurt those at the bottom of society.
Contrary to the government’s claims, the National Living Wage will do little to help those affected by these cuts and, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it risks adding insult to injury by pricing tens of thousands of workers out of the labour market altogether.
There is little evidence that tax credits ‘subsidise’ employers, except to the extent that they make more people willing to work in the first place, creating a larger pool of workers. The politics of this looks dangerous, too: when it’s working families at the bottom of the income distribution that are being hit hardest, it’s hard to say that we are ‘all in this together’. We urge the Chancellor to rethink these cuts and find savings elsewhere instead.
Pretty strong words from a free-market think tank.
I think folk at the ASI would also be quite happy with a universal basic income but that is not on the political horizon.0 -
I didn't think the person who didn't have a problem with spitting on Tories was the moderate choice.Scott_P said:0 -
-
If the Tories had put up an apologist for Hitler in this position, it would headline BBC News. What is the chance they do that with this appointment? Approaching zero...0
-
@JWoodcockMP: We finally have Tory MPs squirming over the vote on tax credit cuts and we unleash more process barminess to divert attention.. So fed up.
@DavidRoe92: It's not barmy. It's entirely in keeping with your party leadership. You now stand behind Communists who love Stalin https://t.co/S3766ocTNS0 -
Oxygen, germs, atoms - the sum of human knowledge continually expands and reveals worlds that have always existed but were hitherto hidden from our sight. To imagine that we in the 21st century with tools that will be considered primitive in decades to come, can even come close to concluding there is no spiritual world or intelligent force behind the universe, is flat out laughable. Why do people insist on this fantasy? Why can't they admit the possibility?ReggieCide said:
I think there's quite a lot of evidence that creationism is utter tosh and so far as science presently takes us, much evidence that there is not a suipernatural being who looks after us from on high. Which institutions have an almost unerring tendency to challenge scientific fact which looks inconvenient to its teachings, starting with flat- earthism as you put it?Luckyguy1983 said:
'I can't see it or measure it so it definitely doesn't exist' is hardly what I would call evidence. On the contrary, it smacks of extraordinarily unenquiring flat-earthism.ReggieCide said:
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.
Dawkins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He doesn't disbelieve in God, he is angry with God - on a mission against God. That's what militant atheists are - people locked in their own internal struggle with spirituality.
Your last pargraph speaks only to your self doubt. You really must have faith.0 -
Either that or Corbyn is so left wing he thinks Milne is a moderate.SouthamObserver said:Corbyn is clearly doing it on purpose. He actually does not want Labour to be successful. Maybe his thinking is that without a credible alternative to the Tories the proletariat will take to the streets.
Of course, the real reason for the Milne appointment is to drive moderates out of Labour. This is a powerful statement that there will be no compromise. The party is moving to the hard, hard left of the spectrum.0 -
That photo sums up perfectly the Opinium data within this thread header.Danny565 said:0 -
We can conclude what probably exists based on evidence. The absence of any evidence for the divine except for man-made creations that have an anthropological basis is a rational basis to conclude the absence of its existance.Luckyguy1983 said:
Oxygen, germs, atoms - the sum of human knowledge continually expands and reveals worlds that have always existed but were hitherto hidden from our sight. To imagine that we in the 21st century with tools that will be considered primitive in decades to come, can even come close to concluding there is no spiritual world or intelligent force behind the universe, is flat out laughable. Why do people insist on this fantasy? Why can't they admit the possibility?ReggieCide said:
I think there's quite a lot of evidence that creationism is utter tosh and so far as science presently takes us, much evidence that there is not a suipernatural being who looks after us from on high. Which institutions have an almost unerring tendency to challenge scientific fact which looks inconvenient to its teachings, starting with flat- earthism as you put it?Luckyguy1983 said:
'I can't see it or measure it so it definitely doesn't exist' is hardly what I would call evidence. On the contrary, it smacks of extraordinarily unenquiring flat-earthism.ReggieCide said:
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.
Dawkins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He doesn't disbelieve in God, he is angry with God - on a mission against God. That's what militant atheists are - people locked in their own internal struggle with spirituality.
Your last pargraph speaks only to your self doubt. You really must have faith.
It doesn't mean we can conclude with 100% certainty that there is no God, Ghosts, Poltergeists, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters that exist. But the evidence for them all is equally zero and therefore probably don't exist.
That is the scientific method. If the evidence changes, our conclusions can change.0 -
Why does Corbyn find it so hard to wear a suit?
0 -
As a member of the ABO (anyone but Osborne) club for PM, I do wonder if Osborne has slipped another omnishambles budget through in 2015.
+ Tax credit grief over something that less than a £1billion would take the heat out of.
+ The Sunday trading unnecessary tiff
+ The future BTL disaster
etc0 -
I'm sure there are stars in the sky which we have no evidence of planets orbiting but that does not mean there is zero chance that planet existing. Plenty of scientists believe in the multiverse (including Dawkins) despite less evidence.Philip_Thompson said:
We can conclude what probably exists based on evidence. The absence of any evidence for the divine except for man-made creations that have an anthropological basis is a rational basis to conclude the absence of its existance.Luckyguy1983 said:
Oxygen, germs, atoms - the sum of human knowledge continually expands and reveals worlds that have always existed but were hitherto hidden from our sight. To imagine that we in the 21st century with tools that will be considered primitive in decades to come, can even come close to concluding there is no spiritual world or intelligent force behind the universe, is flat out laughable. Why do people insist on this fantasy? Why can't they admit the possibility?ReggieCide said:
I think there's quite a lot of evidence that creationism is utter tosh and so far as science presently takes us, much evidence that there is not a suipernatural being who looks after us from on high. Which institutions have an almost unerring tendency to challenge scientific fact which looks inconvenient to its teachings, starting with flat- earthism as you put it?Luckyguy1983 said:
'I can't see it or measure it so it definitely doesn't exist' is hardly what I would call evidence. On the contrary, it smacks of extraordinarily unenquiring flat-earthism.ReggieCide said:
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.
Dawkins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He doesn't disbelieve in God, he is angry with God - on a mission against God. That's what militant atheists are - people locked in their own internal struggle with spirituality.
Your last pargraph speaks only to your self doubt. You really must have faith.
It doesn't mean we can conclude with 100% certainty that there is no God, Ghosts, Poltergeists, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters that exist. But the evidence for them all is equally zero and therefore probably don't exist.
That is the scientific method. If the evidence changes, our conclusions can change.0 -
Red Tory Scum.....bigjohnowls said:
I am now on the right of the party by the looks of it.MyBurningEars said:
Milne's views are out there for all to see - there must be a stack of Guardian columns to work through.SouthamObserver said:Corbyn is clearly doing it on purpose. He actually does not want Labour to be successful. Maybe his thinking is that without a credible alternative to the Tories the proletariat will take to the streets.
Of course, the real reason for the Milne appointment is to drive moderates out of Labour. This is a powerful statement that there will be no compromise. The party is moving to the hard, hard left of the spectrum.
I imagine Tory HQ have never bothered to, because they couldn't have believed he'd be appointed. This will change, of course.
He certainly doesn't represent the political mainstream of this country. He doesn't even represent the mainstream of the Labour party (at least at a parliamentary level). He really is in the "proletariat will seize power by the street, not the ballot box" camp.
With all that in mind, this is an astonishing appointment.
0 -
Corbyn is so locked into his little bubble that he has no knowledge of or interest in the real world. I am looking forward to see what form of words Nick Palmer's uses to wave away this latest moronic appointment. It is a nice, phlegmy gob in the face of the electorate from a party with absolutely no interest in securing power to help the people it claims to care about.TGOHF said:
Either that or Corbyn is so left wing he thinks Milne is a moderate.SouthamObserver said:Corbyn is clearly doing it on purpose. He actually does not want Labour to be successful. Maybe his thinking is that without a credible alternative to the Tories the proletariat will take to the streets.
Of course, the real reason for the Milne appointment is to drive moderates out of Labour. This is a powerful statement that there will be no compromise. The party is moving to the hard, hard left of the spectrum.
0 -
You're right, of course we can't. Yet people continue with the canard that 'science' has disproved the existence of God. Makes them feel better I suppose.Philip_Thompson said:
We can conclude what probably exists based on evidence. The absence of any evidence for the divine except for man-made creations that have an anthropological basis is a rational basis to conclude the absence of its existance.Luckyguy1983 said:
Oxygen, germs, atoms - the sum of human knowledge continually expands and reveals worlds that have always existed but were hitherto hidden from our sight. To imagine that we in the 21st century with tools that will be considered primitive in decades to come, can even come close to concluding there is no spiritual world or intelligent force behind the universe, is flat out laughable. Why do people insist on this fantasy? Why can't they admit the possibility?ReggieCide said:
I think there's quite a lot of evidence that creationism is utter tosh and so far as science presently takes us, much evidence that there is not a suipernatural being who looks after us from on high. Which institutions have an almost unerring tendency to challenge scientific fact which looks inconvenient to its teachings, starting with flat- earthism as you put it?Luckyguy1983 said:
'I can't see it or measure it so it definitely doesn't exist' is hardly what I would call evidence. On the contrary, it smacks of extraordinarily unenquiring flat-earthism.ReggieCide said:
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.
Dawkins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He doesn't disbelieve in God, he is angry with God - on a mission against God. That's what militant atheists are - people locked in their own internal struggle with spirituality.
Your last pargraph speaks only to your self doubt. You really must have faith.
It doesn't mean we can conclude with 100% certainty that there is no God, Ghosts, Poltergeists, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters that exist. But the evidence for them all is equally zero and therefore probably don't exist.
That is the scientific method. If the evidence changes, our conclusions can change.0 -
I don't think many Conservatives will be describing it as stunning.bigjohnowls said:If you missed Heidi Allen’s stunning maiden speech, we assure you it’s well worth catching up with.
She used her first speech to the House of Commons...to basically savage George Osborne over tax credits.0 -
Labour has lost its motion to reverse the cuts in WTC? How is this possible? Surely everyone (or at least OGH) is in agreement that this is a political calamity. Even that completely useless prat (sure about this ed.?) Davis was opposed.
I'm confused.
0 -
It is apparent that you're a sci-fi fantasiser. Of course we cannot predict the future with any certainty but we have to live with what we know. That's why faith is central to religion - you have to believe what's unproven and the problem arises as more and gets proven which casts more and more doubt on the existence of a god in heaven who runs everything. I'll admit the possibility to preserve your fig leaf of credibility.Luckyguy1983 said:
Oxygen, germs, atoms - the sum of human knowledge continually expands and reveals worlds that have always existed but were hitherto hidden from our sight. To imagine that we in the 21st century with tools that will be considered primitive in decades to come, can even come close to concluding there is no spiritual world or intelligent force behind the universe, is flat out laughable. Why do people insist on this fantasy? Why can't they admit the possibility?ReggieCide said:
I think there's quite a lot of evidence that creationism is utter tosh and so far as science presently takes us, much evidence that there is not a suipernatural being who looks after us from on high. Which institutions have an almost unerring tendency to challenge scientific fact which looks inconvenient to its teachings, starting with flat- earthism as you put it?Luckyguy1983 said:
'I can't see it or measure it so it definitely doesn't exist' is hardly what I would call evidence. On the contrary, it smacks of extraordinarily unenquiring flat-earthism.ReggieCide said:
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.
Dawkins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He doesn't disbelieve in God, he is angry with God - on a mission against God. That's what militant atheists are - people locked in their own internal struggle with spirituality.
Your last pargraph speaks only to your self doubt. You really must have faith.
0 -
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 15 mins15 minutes ago
20 Dec '13 @SeumasMilne wrote LeeRigby had served in multiple operations in Afghanistan so his murder 'wasn't terrorism in the normal sense'
un effing believeable.0 -
she was right, but i wouldnt expect the left to cheerlead. She doesnt object to reduction. Just the speed of introduction. She made that clear.AndyJS said:
I don't think many Conservatives will be describing it as stunning.bigjohnowls said:If you missed Heidi Allen’s stunning maiden speech, we assure you it’s well worth catching up with.
She used her first speech to the House of Commons...to basically savage George Osborne over tax credits.0 -
If he actually said that. Corbyn is an idiot for appointing him.TCPoliticalBetting said:Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 15 mins15 minutes ago
20 Dec '13 @SeumasMilne wrote LeeRigby had served in multiple operations in Afghanistan so his murder 'wasn't terrorism in the normal sense'
un effing believeable.0 -
Because it has. The notion that we can't be 100% certain so therefore we can't say God is disproven is invalid because scientific proof doesn't mean 100% certainty which is an impossibility. Our theories of how gravity works are changing but that doesn't mean gravity isn't right since we're not 100% certain on everything.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're right, of course we can't. Yet people continue with the canard that 'science' has disproved the existence of God. Makes them feel better I suppose.Philip_Thompson said:We can conclude what probably exists based on evidence. The absence of any evidence for the divine except for man-made creations that have an anthropological basis is a rational basis to conclude the absence of its existance.
It doesn't mean we can conclude with 100% certainty that there is no God, Ghosts, Poltergeists, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters that exist. But the evidence for them all is equally zero and therefore probably don't exist.
That is the scientific method. If the evidence changes, our conclusions can change.
There is not only zero evidence for mythical creatures but what those mythical creatures have supposedly done has been disproven. We can therefore conclude that the myths are disproven unless and until there is any evidence at all to the contrary.0 -
Here you go, with the quote in context:bigjohnowls said:
If he actually said that. Corbyn is an idiot for appointing him.TCPoliticalBetting said:Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 15 mins15 minutes ago
20 Dec '13 @SeumasMilne wrote LeeRigby had served in multiple operations in Afghanistan so his murder 'wasn't terrorism in the normal sense'
un effing believeable.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/woolwich-attack-muslim-world-islamophobia0 -
My extremely pompous CoS Minister used to talk about the "leap of faith". After listening to him for over a year I decided to stay on the dry land of established facts.ReggieCide said:
It is apparent that you're a sci-fi fantasiser. Of course we cannot predict the future with any certainty but we have to live with what we know. That's why faith is central to religion - you have to believe what's unproven and the problem arises as more and gets proven which casts more and more doubt on the existence of a god in heaven who runs everything. I'll admit the possibility to preserve your fig leaf of credibility.Luckyguy1983 said:
Oxygen, germs, atoms - the sum of human knowledge continually expands and reveals worlds that have always existed but were hitherto hidden from our sight. To imagine that we in the 21st century with tools that will be considered primitive in decades to come, can even come close to concluding there is no spiritual world or intelligent force behind the universe, is flat out laughable. Why do people insist on this fantasy? Why can't they admit the possibility?ReggieCide said:
I think there's quite a lot of evidence that creationism is utter tosh and so far as science presently takes us, much evidence that there is not a suipernatural being who looks after us from on high. Which institutions have an almost unerring tendency to challenge scientific fact which looks inconvenient to its teachings, starting with flat- earthism as you put it?Luckyguy1983 said:
'I can't see it or measure it so it definitely doesn't exist' is hardly what I would call evidence. On the contrary, it smacks of extraordinarily unenquiring flat-earthism.ReggieCide said:
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.
Dawkins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He doesn't disbelieve in God, he is angry with God - on a mission against God. That's what militant atheists are - people locked in their own internal struggle with spirituality.
Your last pargraph speaks only to your self doubt. You really must have faith.
For me, the votes are in and counted. The idea that religion is a net good is rejected.0 -
Well, I'm glad that I voted for her. But I'm not a Tory.AndyJS said:
I don't think many Conservatives will be describing it as stunning.bigjohnowls said:If you missed Heidi Allen’s stunning maiden speech, we assure you it’s well worth catching up with.
She used her first speech to the House of Commons...to basically savage George Osborne over tax credits.
0 -
confused to say the leastPhilip_Thompson said:
Because it has. The notion that we can't be 100% certain so therefore we can't say God is disproven is invalid because scientific proof doesn't mean 100% certainty which is an impossibility. Our theories of how gravity works are changing but that doesn't mean gravity isn't right since we're not 100% certain on everything.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're right, of course we can't. Yet people continue with the canard that 'science' has disproved the existence of God. Makes them feel better I suppose.Philip_Thompson said:We can conclude what probably exists based on evidence. The absence of any evidence for the divine except for man-made creations that have an anthropological basis is a rational basis to conclude the absence of its existance.
It doesn't mean we can conclude with 100% certainty that there is no God, Ghosts, Poltergeists, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters that exist. But the evidence for them all is equally zero and therefore probably don't exist.
That is the scientific method. If the evidence changes, our conclusions can change.
There is not only zero evidence for mythical creatures but what those mythical creatures have supposedly done has been disproven. We can therefore conclude that the myths are disproven unless and until there is any evidence at all to the contrary.0 -
The idea of the multiverse is at least based upon mathematical calculations which lead people to develop a hypothesis. As far as I am aware there has not been a single piece of evidence ever presented to support the existence of God.JEO said:
I'm sure there are stars in the sky which we have no evidence of planets orbiting but that does not mean there is zero chance that planet existing. Plenty of scientists believe in the multiverse (including Dawkins) despite less evidence.0 -
@MrHarryCole: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn is wearing white tie tonight.0
-
Haha! Seamus Milne!0
-
Are you confused because its really quite simple. Which bit are you confused about, the room to admit imperfect knowledge and so today's beliefs can always change, or the room to conclude what is or isn't proven based on our sum of knowledge today while accepting the future may change that?Alanbrooke said:
confused to say the leastPhilip_Thompson said:
Because it has. The notion that we can't be 100% certain so therefore we can't say God is disproven is invalid because scientific proof doesn't mean 100% certainty which is an impossibility. Our theories of how gravity works are changing but that doesn't mean gravity isn't right since we're not 100% certain on everything.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're right, of course we can't. Yet people continue with the canard that 'science' has disproved the existence of God. Makes them feel better I suppose.Philip_Thompson said:We can conclude what probably exists based on evidence. The absence of any evidence for the divine except for man-made creations that have an anthropological basis is a rational basis to conclude the absence of its existance.
It doesn't mean we can conclude with 100% certainty that there is no God, Ghosts, Poltergeists, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters that exist. But the evidence for them all is equally zero and therefore probably don't exist.
That is the scientific method. If the evidence changes, our conclusions can change.
There is not only zero evidence for mythical creatures but what those mythical creatures have supposedly done has been disproven. We can therefore conclude that the myths are disproven unless and until there is any evidence at all to the contrary.0 -
In another parallel universe there's an antifrank jokingly imagining a parallel universe in which Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the opposition and he's just appointed Seumas Milne to lead his communications strategy.Richard_Tyndall said:
The idea of the multiverse is at least based upon mathematical calculations which lead people to develop a hypothesis. As far as I am aware there has not been a single piece of evidence ever presented to support the existence of God.JEO said:
I'm sure there are stars in the sky which we have no evidence of planets orbiting but that does not mean there is zero chance that planet existing. Plenty of scientists believe in the multiverse (including Dawkins) despite less evidence.0 -
you're just confused.Philip_Thompson said:
Are you because its quite simply. Which bit are you confused about, the room to admit imperfect knowledge and so today's beliefs can always change, or the room to conclude what is or isn't proven based on our sum of knowledge today while accepting the future may change that?Alanbrooke said:
confused to say the leastPhilip_Thompson said:
Because it has. The notion that we can't be 100% certain so therefore we can't say God is disproven is invalid because scientific proof doesn't mean 100% certainty which is an impossibility. Our theories of how gravity works are changing but that doesn't mean gravity isn't right since we're not 100% certain on everything.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're right, of course we can't. Yet people continue with the canard that 'science' has disproved the existence of God. Makes them feel better I suppose.Philip_Thompson said:We can conclude what probably exists based on evidence. The absence of any evidence for the divine except for man-made creations that have an anthropological basis is a rational basis to conclude the absence of its existance.
It doesn't mean we can conclude with 100% certainty that there is no God, Ghosts, Poltergeists, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters that exist. But the evidence for them all is equally zero and therefore probably don't exist.
That is the scientific method. If the evidence changes, our conclusions can change.
There is not only zero evidence for mythical creatures but what those mythical creatures have supposedly done has been disproven. We can therefore conclude that the myths are disproven unless and until there is any evidence at all to the contrary.0 -
No I'm not at all.Alanbrooke said:
you're just confused.Philip_Thompson said:
Are you because its quite simply. Which bit are you confused about, the room to admit imperfect knowledge and so today's beliefs can always change, or the room to conclude what is or isn't proven based on our sum of knowledge today while accepting the future may change that?Alanbrooke said:
confused to say the leastPhilip_Thompson said:
Because it has. The notion that we can't be 100% certain so therefore we can't say God is disproven is invalid because scientific proof doesn't mean 100% certainty which is an impossibility. Our theories of how gravity works are changing but that doesn't mean gravity isn't right since we're not 100% certain on everything.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're right, of course we can't. Yet people continue with the canard that 'science' has disproved the existence of God. Makes them feel better I suppose.Philip_Thompson said:We can conclude what probably exists based on evidence. The absence of any evidence for the divine except for man-made creations that have an anthropological basis is a rational basis to conclude the absence of its existance.
It doesn't mean we can conclude with 100% certainty that there is no God, Ghosts, Poltergeists, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters that exist. But the evidence for them all is equally zero and therefore probably don't exist.
That is the scientific method. If the evidence changes, our conclusions can change.
There is not only zero evidence for mythical creatures but what those mythical creatures have supposedly done has been disproven. We can therefore conclude that the myths are disproven unless and until there is any evidence at all to the contrary.0 -
It is the responsibility of God believers to prove he does exist...so far the proof is seriously lacking...in fact there is no proof at all..0
-
LOL yeah whateverPhilip_Thompson said:
No I'm not at all.Alanbrooke said:
you're just confused.Philip_Thompson said:
Are you because its quite simply. Which bit are you confused about, the room to admit imperfect knowledge and so today's beliefs can always change, or the room to conclude what is or isn't proven based on our sum of knowledge today while accepting the future may change that?Alanbrooke said:
confused to say the leastPhilip_Thompson said:
Because it has. The notion that we can't be 100% certain so therefore we can't say God is disproven is invalid because scientific proof doesn't mean 100% certainty which is an impossibility. Our theories of how gravity works are changing but that doesn't mean gravity isn't right since we're not 100% certain on everything.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're right, of course we can't. Yet people continue with the canard that 'science' has disproved the existence of God. Makes them feel better I suppose.Philip_Thompson said:We can conclude what probably exists based on evidence. The absence of any evidence for the divine except for man-made creations that have an anthropological basis is a rational basis to conclude the absence of its existance.
It doesn't mean we can conclude with 100% certainty that there is no God, Ghosts, Poltergeists, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters that exist. But the evidence for them all is equally zero and therefore probably don't exist.
That is the scientific method. If the evidence changes, our conclusions can change.
There is not only zero evidence for mythical creatures but what those mythical creatures have supposedly done has been disproven. We can therefore conclude that the myths are disproven unless and until there is any evidence at all to the contrary.0 -
@nicholaswatt: Baroness Meacher taking 'fatal' out of @UKHouseofLords motion on tax credits. Instead table motion calling for govt to respond to IFS0
-
Anecdote alert:DavidL said:My extremely pompous CoS Minister used to talk about the "leap of faith". After listening to him for over a year I decided to stay on the dry land of established facts.
For me, the votes are in and counted. The idea that religion is a net good is rejected.
Many years ago, I had an acquaintance who was a strict Catholic who attended church regularly, and took a rather sinful amount of pride in the good works he did in conjunction with the church.
One day, he met a family who helped him out in a small way. On his blog he wrote something like: "Met this nice couple and their daughter, who is dying of a degenerative disease. They are not Christians: pray for them."
I may not have reproduced it well, but the way it was written made it sound as though the daughter was dying because they were not Christians. But I knew it might just have incorrectly written.
So I asked him about it next time I talked to him, and he admitted that was his view.
Tosser.0 -
He is, he definitely is ........ EstablishmentScott_P said:@MrHarryCole: Breaking: Jeremy Corbyn is wearing white tie tonight.
0 -
@MrHarryCole: The Palace have sat Mr Jeremy Corbyn opposite a Mr Mark Carney. Presumably for the lolz.0
-
wake up! Wake up! It's only a dream.antifrank said:
In another parallel universe there's an antifrank jokingly imagining a parallel universe in which Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the opposition and he's just appointed Seumas Milne to lead his communications strategy.Richard_Tyndall said:
The idea of the multiverse is at least based upon mathematical calculations which lead people to develop a hypothesis. As far as I am aware there has not been a single piece of evidence ever presented to support the existence of God.JEO said:
I'm sure there are stars in the sky which we have no evidence of planets orbiting but that does not mean there is zero chance that planet existing. Plenty of scientists believe in the multiverse (including Dawkins) despite less evidence.0 -
We need a Babel fish.Richard_Tyndall said:
The idea of the multiverse is at least based upon mathematical calculations which lead people to develop a hypothesis. As far as I am aware there has not been a single piece of evidence ever presented to support the existence of God.JEO said:
I'm sure there are stars in the sky which we have no evidence of planets orbiting but that does not mean there is zero chance that planet existing. Plenty of scientists believe in the multiverse (including Dawkins) despite less evidence.0 -
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 1m1 minute ago
The Palace have sat Mr Jeremy Corbyn opposite a Mr Mark Carney. Presumably for the lolz.0 -
Seumas Milne?
Shark. Jumped.
0 -
Thanks. Reads a lot different in context.antifrank said:
Here you go, with the quote in context:bigjohnowls said:
If he actually said that. Corbyn is an idiot for appointing him.TCPoliticalBetting said:Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 15 mins15 minutes ago
20 Dec '13 @SeumasMilne wrote LeeRigby had served in multiple operations in Afghanistan so his murder 'wasn't terrorism in the normal sense'
un effing believeable.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/woolwich-attack-muslim-world-islamophobia0 -
Do you think the Pastafarian claim that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster is proven or disproven with the scientific evidence we have to date?Alanbrooke said:
LOL yeah whateverPhilip_Thompson said:
No I'm not at all.Alanbrooke said:
you're just confused.Philip_Thompson said:Are you because its quite simply. Which bit are you confused about, the room to admit imperfect knowledge and so today's beliefs can always change, or the room to conclude what is or isn't proven based on our sum of knowledge today while accepting the future may change that?
There is the exact same amount of evidence for gods, ghosts, invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting between the sun in the space between Earth and Mars. So what conclusion do you logically draw about them too?0 -
too busy watching the car plants, much more fun.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you think the Pastafarian claim that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster is proven or disproven with the scientific evidence we have to date?Alanbrooke said:
LOL yeah whateverPhilip_Thompson said:
No I'm not at all.Alanbrooke said:
you're just confused.Philip_Thompson said:Are you because its quite simply. Which bit are you confused about, the room to admit imperfect knowledge and so today's beliefs can always change, or the room to conclude what is or isn't proven based on our sum of knowledge today while accepting the future may change that?
There is the exact same amount of evidence for gods, ghosts, invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting between the sun in the space between Earth and Mars. So what conclusion do you logically draw about them too?0 -
-
Who would you sit Jeremy Corbyn opposite? Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is a former banker.dr_spyn said:Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 1m1 minute ago
The Palace have sat Mr Jeremy Corbyn opposite a Mr Mark Carney. Presumably for the lolz.
0 -
Don't be ridiculous. The idea that in an infinity of Universes means that all things are possible is based on a misunderstanding of the infinite number of positions of every atom and quantum interaction. Some things are just too ridiculous for any Universe.antifrank said:
In another parallel universe there's an antifrank jokingly imagining a parallel universe in which Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the opposition and he's just appointed Seumas Milne to lead his communications strategy.Richard_Tyndall said:
The idea of the multiverse is at least based upon mathematical calculations which lead people to develop a hypothesis. As far as I am aware there has not been a single piece of evidence ever presented to support the existence of God.JEO said:
I'm sure there are stars in the sky which we have no evidence of planets orbiting but that does not mean there is zero chance that planet existing. Plenty of scientists believe in the multiverse (including Dawkins) despite less evidence.0 -
That's cool, didn't actually expect you to bring and science or logic to explain your confusion comments since as Mr Tyndall said there is no such evidence. Enjoy what you're watching.Alanbrooke said:
too busy watching the car plants, much more fun.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you think the Pastafarian claim that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster is proven or disproven with the scientific evidence we have to date?Alanbrooke said:
LOL yeah whateverPhilip_Thompson said:
No I'm not at all.Alanbrooke said:
you're just confused.Philip_Thompson said:Are you because its quite simply. Which bit are you confused about, the room to admit imperfect knowledge and so today's beliefs can always change, or the room to conclude what is or isn't proven based on our sum of knowledge today while accepting the future may change that?
There is the exact same amount of evidence for gods, ghosts, invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting between the sun in the space between Earth and Mars. So what conclusion do you logically draw about them too?0 -
It won't bite him in context though, will it.bigjohnowls said:
Thanks. Reads a lot different in context.antifrank said:
Here you go, with the quote in context:bigjohnowls said:
If he actually said that. Corbyn is an idiot for appointing him.TCPoliticalBetting said:Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 15 mins15 minutes ago
20 Dec '13 @SeumasMilne wrote LeeRigby had served in multiple operations in Afghanistan so his murder 'wasn't terrorism in the normal sense'
un effing believeable.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/woolwich-attack-muslim-world-islamophobia0 -
BBC and the Queen skipping over the Opium wars somewhat.0
-
Tony Blairantifrank said:
Who would you sit Jeremy Corbyn opposite? Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is a former banker.dr_spyn said:Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 1m1 minute ago
The Palace have sat Mr Jeremy Corbyn opposite a Mr Mark Carney. Presumably for the lolz.0 -
That's putting it politely.dr_spyn said:Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 4s5 seconds ago
Seamus Milne's appointment is insane.0 -
I will, we have this debate on PB about every 4-6 months, I can join in the next time if there's nothing better on TVPhilip_Thompson said:
That's cool, didn't actually expect you to bring and science or logic to explain your confusion comments since as Mr Tyndall said there is no such evidence. Enjoy what you're watching.Alanbrooke said:
too busy watching the car plants, much more fun.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you think the Pastafarian claim that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster is proven or disproven with the scientific evidence we have to date?Alanbrooke said:
LOL yeah whateverPhilip_Thompson said:
No I'm not at all.Alanbrooke said:
you're just confused.Philip_Thompson said:Are you because its quite simply. Which bit are you confused about, the room to admit imperfect knowledge and so today's beliefs can always change, or the room to conclude what is or isn't proven based on our sum of knowledge today while accepting the future may change that?
There is the exact same amount of evidence for gods, ghosts, invisible pink unicorns or teapots orbiting between the sun in the space between Earth and Mars. So what conclusion do you logically draw about them too?0 -
Brave. As they say on "Yes, Minister". But she does have a degree in astrophysics according to her website. That must be a first in HoC?AndyJS said:
I don't think many Conservatives will be describing it as stunning.bigjohnowls said:If you missed Heidi Allen’s stunning maiden speech, we assure you it’s well worth catching up with.
She used her first speech to the House of Commons...to basically savage George Osborne over tax credits.0 -
@JournoStephen: Asked about the September 11 terrorist attacks, a Labour Party spokesman said: https://t.co/z4fEomkvDu https://t.co/WIL31299x50
-
Heidi Allen. Out-rider for Boris or genuine free thinker backbencher? I'm intrigued.0
-
In general, people with strong commitment to a belief system will be of above average intelligence.ReggieCide said:
I would suggest that atheism is evidentially based when set against the meanderings of the religious Corbynistas of their day and their chosen tribalisms. As Dawkins (I think) has suggested, as the strength of religious conviction increases so the corresponding IQ levels decrease. I'm sure he will have expressed that more eloquently.Luckyguy1983 said:
For a believer, atheism is as much a wilful delusion as religious belief is to an atheist. They would argue we're seperated from the divine every day by nothing more than a fine veil. We just choose to ignore.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, as I said it gives immense solace. Your life is shit, but one day everything will be better.SeanT said:
What a lot of bollocks. You're just as ignorant as the rest of the secular Western liberals. You literally have no concept of the solace religion brings, its emotional power, especially in its more fundamental forms.SouthamObserver said:
He had a few decent ones. Religion is relief from the grinding misery of day to day life and the promise of better to come: as long as you do what you are told and accept your fate in this life. Cover yourself in a veil and obey your husband, you'll go to heaven; accept you have nothing while the bloke in the castle has everything, including full control of your life, and you'll go to heaven. Don't kick up a fuss, take every knock you get, life is shit, but who cares, it only lasts a few years and then you get eternal paradise.Roger said:SO
'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."
You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??
(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).
Religion gives life a shape, a meaning and a purpose - a mighty narrative, with a redemptive coda. Compared to religion, western liberalism can look a trivial and a vacuous thing: which is why many many Muslims sincerely reject it, and cling fiercely to the faith that brings them joy.
Until well meaning fools like you grasp this central and basic point, we are in trouble.
I actually do get it to an extent at least. My wife is a practising catholic and there are times when I have been in church with her that I have felt a beautiful calm that I have never felt elsewhere: an old church, a timeless ritual, everyone focused on the same thing, it is certainly powerful. Those who truly do believe are very fortunate. But it's not something you can force on yourself or other people.0 -
@jimwaterson: Well Corbyn is definitely a fan of Milne's columns. https://t.co/BZFi5BoG220
-
@surbiton
'That is why the House of Lords is not tradition bound to let this through. By hiding the tax credit cuts from the manifesto, HoL can deliver a blow.'
That's b$llocks,loads of stuff that isn't in the manifesto goes through which ever party is in government.
Dave will just create as many life peers as required to get the legislation through,no problem !
0 -
And another PPE from Oxford to boot. It just gets better and better.Richard_Nabavi said:
That's putting it politely.dr_spyn said:Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 4s5 seconds ago
Seamus Milne's appointment is insane.0 -
A FN victory in 2017 would very helpful to the UK.Casino_Royale said:
Ooo-err.SouthamObserver said:
Ice cold. She'd look great in a well cut, charcoal grey uniform. But I would want to make sure my papers were in order before questioning.SeanT said:
The perfect flaw. Like a beauty spot.notme said:
She has a turn in her right eye though (from that picture).SeanT said:
In related news, Marion Le Pen, the rising star of the FN (and Jean Marie's granddaughter) is seriously beautifultaffys said:''Absolutely ridiculous.''
And asbsolutely counterproductive.
http://imworld.aufeminin.com/story/20140501/marion-marechal-le-pen-223023_w1000.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/617799574267260928/ZsY--Riu_400x400.jpg
She really is hot.
http://marionlepen.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/0-2.jpg
Love this one of her twirling her hair in the regional parliament (or somewhere). Ooof.
http://lahorde.samizdat.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Marion-Marechal-Le-Pen.jpg0 -
Belief systems other than myths exist.Sean_F said:In general, people with strong commitment to a belief system will be of above average intelligence.
0 -
The Labour leader was seen looking rather regal as he arrived at the banquet dressed impeccably.
There was some concern among people that Corbyn would either not turn up, or break protocol and not wear the required clothing.0 -
Confusedianism ?Philip_Thompson said:
Belief systems other than myths exist.Sean_F said:In general, people with strong commitment to a belief system will be of above average intelligence.
0 -
@MrHarryCole: Labour source: “Corbyn’s ‘straight talking, honest politics’ turns out to be apologising for genocide..." https://t.co/je0EcbZ0MN0
-
@MrHarryCole: Labour slam their new spin boss: “It is an appointment that is morally unacceptable.” https://t.co/je0EcbZ0MN0
-
"The videoed butchery of Fusilier Lee Rigby outside Woolwich barracks last May was a horrific act and his killers' murder conviction a foregone conclusion. Rigby was a British soldier who had taken part in multiple combat operations in Afghanistan. So the attack wasn't terrorism in the normal sense of an indiscriminate attack on civilians."bigjohnowls said:
Thanks. Reads a lot different in context.antifrank said:
Here you go, with the quote in context:bigjohnowls said:
If he actually said that. Corbyn is an idiot for appointing him.TCPoliticalBetting said:Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 15 mins15 minutes ago
20 Dec '13 @SeumasMilne wrote LeeRigby had served in multiple operations in Afghanistan so his murder 'wasn't terrorism in the normal sense'
un effing believeable.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/woolwich-attack-muslim-world-islamophobia0 -
Looks like he was proved right to me.Scott_P said:@JournoStephen: Asked about the September 11 terrorist attacks, a Labour Party spokesman said: https://t.co/z4fEomkvDu https://t.co/WIL31299x5
0 -
SF - In general, people with strong commitment to a belief system will be of above average intelligence.
You do have faith! Can you share your source? It certainly seems counter-intuitive.0 -
@timothy_stanley: Seumas Milne: "Communism... delivered industrialisation, education, job security and advances in equality. It encompassed genuine idealism"0
-
Labour heading for polling in the teens.0
-
Wow. Is there a context to this? Which follows, "however in practice it also resulted tens of millions of unnecessary deaths, expansionist military aggression, man made famines and the most brutal oppression ever witnessed in any economic system in the history of mankind".TGOHF said:@timothy_stanley: Seumas Milne: "Communism... delivered industrialisation, education, job security and advances in equality. It encompassed genuine idealism"
0 -
Care to bet?TGOHF said:Labour heading for polling in the teens.
0 -
A motley team of utter twunts who despise Britain.TCPoliticalBetting said:
"The videoed butchery of Fusilier Lee Rigby outside Woolwich barracks last May was a horrific act and his killers' murder conviction a foregone conclusion. Rigby was a British soldier who had taken part in multiple combat operations in Afghanistan. So the attack wasn't terrorism in the normal sense of an indiscriminate attack on civilians."bigjohnowls said:
Thanks. Reads a lot different in context.antifrank said:
Here you go, with the quote in context:bigjohnowls said:
If he actually said that. Corbyn is an idiot for appointing him.TCPoliticalBetting said:Chris Ship @chrisshipitv 15 mins15 minutes ago
20 Dec '13 @SeumasMilne wrote LeeRigby had served in multiple operations in Afghanistan so his murder 'wasn't terrorism in the normal sense'
un effing believeable.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/woolwich-attack-muslim-world-islamophobia0 -
0
