So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
The will of the people is actually the will of the people who think like us. There is no suggestion that Corbynistas would ever govern for the nation as a whole.
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
It is entirely coherent. You are committing a logical fallacy in putting the burden of proof on disproving a myth. If someone is proposing something's existence like gods or orbital tea pots or invisible pink unicorns or anything like it then it is up to them to provide evidence for its existence, not up to others to disprove it.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
Now, if you are going to talk about a bet on the existence of God then you really should read up on Pascal's Wager.
P.S. Faith comes from within not from someone in authority.
Your PS repeats my contention to what effect?
Faith is a substitute for evidence, in the absence of evidence. As Mr Llama says, it comes from within. It is another word for self-delusion.
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
ocratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is solved, as at present, with a Democrat President and GOP Congress). On immigration it is Hispanics who will turn out to vote on it, for most whites it is not the number 1 issue. Harper tried an anti immigrant niqab message yesterday and it bombed, very rarely does an anti immigrant message win elections as Hague and Howard discovered
It even worked with Harper yesterday but it worked too well, because even if canadians hate muslims they still hate the Tories as much, the tactics worked and the NDP slumped but the strategy was flawed because it united the opposition behind a Tory hating, non-muslim friendly Liberal party. Back in the days of Hague and Howard the immigration and cultural problem was much smaller and not acute as it is today.
It obviously did not work as the Tories slumped from 39% in 2011 to 31% yesterday. Certainly by 2005 much of the immigration rise which began under New Labour had occurred
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
People can believe in whatever made up nonsense they want. But scientifically suggesting we need to disprove the existence of gods is like suggesting we need to disprove the existence of Santa and Elves who are magically invisible to adults. You can believe in whatever fairy tales you like but that doesn't mean that the absence of evidence is a virtue. Scientifically there are no gods as there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the plethora of them mankind has invented.
'So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?"
Maggie supported the Contras and her best friend was Pinochet for God's sake and she won three landslides
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
ocratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is solved, as at present, with a Democrat President and GOP Congress). On immigration it is Hispanics who will turn out to vote on it, for most whites it is not the number 1 issue. Harper tried an anti immigrant niqab message yesterday and it bombed, very rarely does an anti immigrant message win elections as Hague and Howard discovered
It ev.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
I don't disagree, but when was an election last won on a promise to slash the taxes of the richest 1%!
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
I can.
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
He's not anti-Labour; he's anti-Corbyn. It's Corbyn who's anti-Labour in giving the Tories a free run and a very good shot at governing until at least 2030.
Corbyn is anti-Labour ? 60% voted for him ! He is Labour. The others are not. He may not win but Labour cannot win anyway unless the 2015 election is effectively reversed. The Liberal Democrats [ remember them ? ] have to win 30 Tory seats and Labour has to win back 40 SNP seats and some more from the Tories.
At least, in the next leader's election those fence-sitters might be a touch more bold, a touch more left wing and stop consulting focus groups.. Cooper [ who, sadly, I voted #1 ] said Britain should take on 10000 refugees. Even parsimonious Cameron pledged 20000.
If Labour members truly believe that Corbyn's mandate is democratic, untainted and representative of party membership of more than 3 months standing, and that that gives Corbyn the right to drive Labour to the hard left then there truly is no hope. Labour is in terminal decline.
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
I'd be interested to know what the polling about British people is on that. As far as I'm aware no pollster ever has the balls to ask people. You wonder how much the English are bothered about the Scots any more. If they've grown disinterested in them it's fair to say they're not going to be too excited about Ulster. I think the place seems culturally alien to most Brits and I'm not convinced long term there'll be the desire to keep it in the UK. Maybe that's what the IRA learned. The Brits could be shifted on Irish politics so long as there weren't bombs being planted on the mainland.
Seumas Milne's appointment really is a Westminster village story. No one outside SW1 who isn't a political obsessive will notice much, and certainly no one who is a floating voter.
That said, sometimes Westminster village stories matter because of the impact on the villagers. There are going to be huge numbers of hacked off Labour MPs tonight. They're going to be even more mutinous as a consequence.
Corbyn is essentially telling them to piss off. It is clear now he has no interest in Labour being a party of government. Rather, his aim is to ensure it is a party of the far left.
BBC seem more interested in Tax Credit vote, cosying up to China, steelworkers losing their jobs.
Completely ignored the big news of the night as pronounced by PB Tories and SO
It's not a big news story. It's just further confirmation that Labour is no longer interested in being a party of government.
So you have said in every post since July.
Its a pity you hate Corbyn but I suppose i can guess why and I can't influence that so will have to get used to you being another anti Labour poster whilst Jezza is in charge.
A great pity indeed.
FFS, Corbyn's elevation is like the Tory party being taken over by the love-child of Nigel Farage and Nick Griffin. How do you expect moderate lefties to react? To cheerfully shrug and loyally pledge support?
A lot of Labourites like Southam spent the 1980s fighting Marxist entryists like Militant, now these same vile commies have taken over the entire party, overnight. So the Southams of this world are horrified and shocked.
Surely you can see why?
I can.
It is Southams right to post Labour isn't serious about Government in every post if he wishes.
Heck EICIPM was a bit on the repetitive side.
I have the right to be saddened by his Anti Labour stance.
I am Old Labour and want Corbyn to win however unlikely that might be.
He's not anti-Labour; he's anti-Corbyn. It's Corbyn who's anti-Labour in giving the Tories a free run and a very good shot at governing until at least 2030.
With respect David
Whilst Corbyn is leader SO will be Anti Labour IMO as he wants them to lose at GE2020 under the current leader
Its like me wanting the mighty Owls to lose every game just because i dont like the manager.
Aint going to happen unless they appoint Warnock!!
I see you live in the same league as Labour. Is that 2nd or 3rd division?
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
ocratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is solved, as at present, with a Democrat President and GOP Congress). On immigration it is Hispanics who will turn out to vote on it, for most whites it is not the number 1 issue. Harper tried an anti immigrant niqab message yesterday and it bombed, very rarely does an anti immigrant message win elections as Hague and Howard discovered
It ev.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
I don't disagree, but when was an election last won on a promise to slash the taxes of the richest 1%!
Nobody is suggesting they do - but facts are facts. The lower 50% of American workers pay no tax. That's absurd. It's obviously broken. How you fix it is the challenge. I think it's flat tax time.
'So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?"
Maggies supported the Contras and her best friend was Pinochet for God's sake and she won three landslides
True but they weren't direct enemies of the UK. Does that necessarily make them morally superior? No. Does it make them less of a political problem. Yes.
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
It is entirely coherent. You are committing a logical fallacy in putting the burden of proof on disproving a myth. If someone is proposing something's existence like gods or orbital tea pots or invisible pink unicorns or anything like it then it is up to them to provide evidence for its existence, not up to others to disprove it.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
Now, if you are going to talk about a bet on the existence of God then you really should read up on Pascal's Wager.
P.S. Faith comes from within not from someone in authority.
Your PS repeats my contention to what effect?
I am sorry, Mr. Cide, I genuinely do not understand your question.
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
The will of the people is actually the will of the people who think like us. There is no suggestion that Corbynistas would ever govern for the nation as a whole.
What else can they do as far-leftists? It is not clear that they can play a better strategy. If they win another leadership election before or after the next general election, that will give them ten years of control of the party to gain control of party organisation facets like new MP nominations to replace retired oldies and frustrated centrists. Ukip or SDP2 are not going to replace Labour in 2020, that's just a fantasy. Eventually the parliamentary party might be remade in their image, and eventually the Conservatives will lose power. Can PB think of a better strategy it would play?
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
ocratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is sodiscovered
It ev.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
I don't disagree, but when was an election last won on a promise to slash the taxes of the richest 1%!
Nobody is suggesting they do - but facts are facts. The lower 50% of American workers pay no tax. That's absurd. It's obviously broken. How you fix it is the challenge. I think it's flat tax time.
They pay tax, just not a great share of it and a flat tax is another argument entirely, it worked in some countries moving from communism to capitalism but introducing it in the west is a different matter, anyway off to bed night
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
It is entirely coherent. You are committing a logical fallacy in putting the burden of proof on disproving a myth. If someone is proposing something's existence like gods or orbital tea pots or invisible pink unicorns or anything like it then it is up to them to provide evidence for its existence, not up to others to disprove it.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
Now, if you are going to talk about a bet on the existence of God then you really should read up on Pascal's Wager.
P.S. Faith comes from within not from someone in authority.
Your PS repeats my contention to what effect?
Faith is a substitute for evidence, in the absence of evidence. As Mr Llama says, it comes from within. It is another word for self-delusion.
Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Benghazi committee on thursday.
TODAY State turned over 1300 pages of Amb. Stephens' emails. After 3 years of administration stone walling.
If the administration had been open and cooperative from the start, would we be in this position?
Obama has still not released his diary and itinerary for the time of the attack, and there is a gap in Hillary's emails covering the time of the attack.
When one sees stonewalling like this one is entitled to ask why.
'So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?"
Maggie supported the Contras and her best friend was Pinochet for God's sake and she won three landslides
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
ocratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is sodiscovered
It ev.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
I don't disagree, but when was an election last won on a promise to slash the taxes of the richest 1%!
Nobody is suggesting they do - but facts are facts. The lower 50% of American workers pay no tax. That's absurd. It's obviously broken. How you fix it is the challenge. I think it's flat tax time.
They pay tax, just not a great share of it and a flat tax is another argument entirely, it worked in some countries moving from communism to capitalism but introducing it in the west is a different matter, anyway off to bed night
The bottom 50% paying less than 3% is effectively no tax.
Interesting: Bayern Munich fans have apparently staged a protest at Arsenal FC over the price of tickets in the UK.
I think it was about the price that they had to pay. I think £65 was mentioned when they pay £15 in Munich. Arsenal's tickets are the most expensive in the UK.
Oh dear. I think the only elusive mythical creature that there's no trace of here is a coherent argument.
The fact you don't understand the argument does not mean it is incoherent.
I understand how disastrously incoherent it is.
As Bertrand Russell put it:
I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.
You're spinning in a circle here with definitions.
Belief in a God of any kind is an act of faith.
Faith is, by definition, that which cannot be proven by science.
Hence science can only disprove the existence of God by disproving the *possibility* of the existence of God. They can't do it by arguing that there is no evidence - because it then just reverts back into being a matter of faith.
But many "believers" are just that, believing what they are told by someone in religious authority over them. There is no faith in that process - it's more akin to gullibility. I agree your point about the impossibility of proving a negative but in this instance, and this being a betting blog, what are the odds against the existence of God being proven in the next 10 years? Even something as stretched as 1,000,000 to 1 still implies there is a 1 in 1,000,001 chance. I wouldn't risk £1 unless I was having a Dirty Harry moment.
Now, if you are going to talk about a bet on the existence of God then you really should read up on Pascal's Wager.
P.S. Faith comes from within not from someone in authority.
Your PS repeats my contention to what effect?
Faith is a substitute for evidence, in the absence of evidence. As Mr Llama says, it comes from within. It is another word for self-delusion.
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
I'd be interested to know what the polling about British people is on that. As far as I'm aware no pollster ever has the balls to ask people. You wonder how much the English are bothered about the Scots any more. If they've grown disinterested in them it's fair to say they're not going to be too excited about Ulster. I think the place seems culturally alien to most Brits and I'm not convinced long term there'll be the desire to keep it in the UK. Maybe that's what the IRA learned. The Brits could be shifted on Irish politics so long as there weren't bombs being planted on the mainland.
I think there is a difference. Ulster is more pro union than anywhere else in the UK, Scotland is less pro union than anywhere else in the UK. I think the English notice that.
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
ocratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
lose.
.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is sodiscovered
It ev.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
I don't disagree, but when was an election last won on a promise to slash the taxes of the richest 1%!
Nobody is suggesting they do - but facts are facts. The lower 50% of American workers pay no tax. That's absurd. It's obviously broken. How you fix it is the challenge. I think it's flat tax time.
They pay tax, just not a great share of it and a flat tax is another argument entirely, it worked in some countries moving from communism to capitalism but introducing it in the west is a different matter, anyway off to bed night
The bottom 50% paying less than 3% is effectively no tax.
There is growing support for a flat tax.
They must be paying all sorts of other taxes though - sales taxes etc that you conveniently ignore. It has of course been one of the aims of neoliberalism to move taxes away from income and towards consumption.
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
The will of the people is actually the will of the people who think like us. There is no suggestion that Corbynistas would ever govern for the nation as a whole.
What else can they do as far-leftists? It is not clear that they can play a better strategy. If they win another leadership election before or after the next general election, that will give them ten years of control of the party to gain control of party organisation facets like new MP nominations to replace retired oldies and frustrated centrists. Ukip or SDP2 are not going to replace Labour in 2020, that's just a fantasy. Eventually the parliamentary party might be remade in their image, and eventually the Conservatives will lose power. Can PB think of a better strategy it would play?
Move to the right, win an election then laugh at the electorate whilst it screws it.
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
I'd be interested to know what the polling about British people is on that. As far as I'm aware no pollster ever has the balls to ask people. You wonder how much the English are bothered about the Scots any more. If they've grown disinterested in them it's fair to say they're not going to be too excited about Ulster. I think the place seems culturally alien to most Brits and I'm not convinced long term there'll be the desire to keep it in the UK. Maybe that's what the IRA learned. The Brits could be shifted on Irish politics so long as there weren't bombs being planted on the mainland.
I think there is a difference. Ulster is more pro union than anywhere else in the UK, Scotland is less pro union than anywhere else in the UK. I think the English notice that.
Ulster is more pro-Union than England and Wales? I doubt it. And what sort of unionism are they defending. More often than not it just seems like anti-Catholic bigotry. Nothing to do with what the Union means to most people on the mainland.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is sodiscovered
It ev.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
I don't disagree, but when was an election last won on a promise to slash the taxes of the richest 1%!
Nobody is suggesting they do - but facts are facts. The lower 50% of American workers pay no tax. That's absurd. It's obviously broken. How you fix it is the challenge. I think it's flat tax time.
They pay tax, just not a great share of it and a flat tax is another argument entirely, it worked in some countries moving from communism to capitalism but introducing it in the west is a different matter, anyway off to bed night
The bottom 50% paying less than 3% is effectively no tax.
There is growing support for a flat tax.
They must be paying all sorts of other taxes though - sales taxes etc that you conveniently ignore. It has of course been one of the aims of neoliberalism to move taxes away from income and towards consumption.
Of course yes, but they are state and local taxes, and the rich obviously pay much more of them. If you don't pay federal income tax you're not paying state income tax. You pay sales and property taxes, but sales tax is typically 6-8% of the selling price, and if you buy big ticket items in the back to school period, there is no sales tax.
The whole thing about 'soaking the rich' is tax to the federal government. The state and local taxes lever off that.
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
I'd be interested to know what the polling about British people is on that. As far as I'm aware no pollster ever has the balls to ask people. You wonder how much the English are bothered about the Scots any more. If they've grown disinterested in them it's fair to say they're not going to be too excited about Ulster. I think the place seems culturally alien to most Brits and I'm not convinced long term there'll be the desire to keep it in the UK. Maybe that's what the IRA learned. The Brits could be shifted on Irish politics so long as there weren't bombs being planted on the mainland.
I think there is a difference. Ulster is more pro union than anywhere else in the UK, Scotland is less pro union than anywhere else in the UK. I think the English notice that.
Ulster is more pro-Union than England and Wales? I doubt it. And what sort of unionism are they defending. More often than not it just seems like anti-Catholic bigotry. Nothing to do with what the Union means to most people on the mainland.
Ulster unionists' motivation is of no consequence to a lot of the English I'm sure. The flag is the cross of St George with the red hand - that is tribal and emotional. I've not know any Catholic Ulstermen but I have worked with Protestant Ulsterman (with no selection on my part) and the ones I've worked with have been passionate about UK union and fearful about the consequences of a united Ireland. I am neutral on this and merely report my very limited experience.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is sodiscovered
It ev.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
I don't disagree, but when was an election last won on a promise to slash the taxes of the richest 1%!
Nobody is suggesting they do - but facts are facts. The lower 50% of American workers pay no tax. That's absurd. It's obviously broken. How you fix it is the challenge. I think it's flat tax time.
They pay tax, just not a great share of it and a flat tax is another argument entirely, it worked in some countries moving from communism to capitalism but introducing it in the west is a different matter, anyway off to bed night
The bottom 50% paying less than 3% is effectively no tax.
There is growing support for a flat tax.
They must be paying all sorts of other taxes though - sales taxes etc that you conveniently ignore. It has of course been one of the aims of neoliberalism to move taxes away from income and towards consumption.
Let me put this more simply: everyone pays sales tax and property tax, and the fact that 50% of American wage earners pay no income tax is simply wrong.
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
I'd be interested to know what the polling about British people is on that. As far as I'm aware no pollster ever has the balls to ask people. You wonder how much the English are bothered about the Scots any more. If they've grown disinterested in them it's fair to say they're not going to be too excited about Ulster. I think the place seems culturally alien to most Brits and I'm not convinced long term there'll be the desire to keep it in the UK. Maybe that's what the IRA learned. The Brits could be shifted on Irish politics so long as there weren't bombs being planted on the mainland.
Funny you should ask.
38% wish Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK. 25% wish it to join the republic.
50-55% back Right wing parties, and Corbyn reinforced that.
At the GE previously, left and centre parties had a majority. The current situation is transient and one day the cycle will turn just as it did for the Canadian Liberals and Conservatives last night.
The cycle will turn. But, not while Labour Is led by Corbyn.
NBC/WSJ poll also finds that Clinton has slightly improved her general-election standing. She leads Republican Ben Carson by two points in a hypothetical match up, 47 percent to 45 percent. But a month ago, Carson had a one-point edge over Clinton, 46 percent to 45 percent.
Clinton also leads Marco Rubio by one point (46 percent to 45 percent) and Ted Cruz by eight points (49 percent to 41 percent).
By comparison, Democratic rival Bernie Sanders is ahead of Carson by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Rubio by four points (45 percent to 41 percent) and Cruz by 12 points (50 percent to 38 percent).
The NBC/WSJ poll shows a generic Democrat holding a one-point advantage a generic Republican in a presidential contest, 41 percent to 40 percent; it was 38 percent to 38 percent a month ago.
Democratic Party vs. GOP: In the mainstream or not?
The new NBC/WSJ poll also measured which political party was in the mainstream - or outside the mainstream - on six different issues:
Gay marriage: 63 percent said the Democratic Party was in the mainstream on this issue, versus just 29 percent who said that about the Republican Party; Abortion: 54 percent said Democrats were in the mainstream here, versus 33 percent who said Republicans; Climate change: 54 percent mainstream for Democrats, 30 percent mainstream for Republicans; Immigration: 46 percent mainstream for Democrats, 43 percent mainstream for Republicans; Fiscal issues such as taxing and spending: 47 percent mainstream for Republicans, 42 percent mainstream for Democrats; Guns: 51 percent mainstream for Republicans, 38 percent mainstream for Democrats. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-wsj-poll-more-americans-unsatisfied-clintons-response-benghazi-attack-n448041
If the republicans can make the election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is solved, as at present, with a Democrat President and GOP Congress). On immigration it is Hispanics who will turn out to vote on it, for most whites it is not the number 1 issue. Harper tried an anti immigrant niqab message yesterday and it bombed, very rarely does an anti immigrant message win elections as Hague and Howard discovered
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
I'd be interested to know what the polling about British people is on that. As far as I'm aware no pollster ever has the balls to ask people. You wonder how much the English are bothered about the Scots any more. If they've grown disinterested in them it's fair to say they're not going to be too excited about Ulster. I think the place seems culturally alien to most Brits and I'm not convinced long term there'll be the desire to keep it in the UK. Maybe that's what the IRA learned. The Brits could be shifted on Irish politics so long as there weren't bombs being planted on the mainland.
Funny you should ask.
38% wish Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK. 25% wish it to join the republic.
At GE2015, 50.4% voted for Unionist parties, 38.8% for Nationalist parties.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is sodiscovered
It ev.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
I don't disagree, but when was an election last won on a promise to slash the taxes of the richest 1%!
Nobody is suggesting they do - but facts are facts. The lower 50% of American workers pay no tax. That's absurd. It's obviously broken. How you fix it is the challenge. I think it's flat tax time.
They pay tax, just not a great share of it and a flat tax is another argument entirely, it worked in some countries moving from communism to capitalism but introducing it in the west is a different matter, anyway off to bed night
The bottom 50% paying less than 3% is effectively no tax.
There is growing support for a flat tax.
They must be paying all sorts of other taxes though - sales taxes etc that you conveniently ignore. It has of course been one of the aims of neoliberalism to move taxes away from income and towards consumption.
Let me put this more simply: everyone pays sales tax and property tax, and the fact that 50% of American wage earners pay no income tax is simply wrong.
They do pay income tax - 2.78% of it, as you mentioned above. The rich have far more disposable income than the poor.
There's quite a claim in that article, which seems remarkable and needs sourcing:
He knows that the West shouldn’t ‘demonise’ Putin — while Russian jets are scrambled by Assad, and responsibility for six of every seven deaths in Syria lies with the Russian-backed regime.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is sodiscovered
It ev.
The 'tax the rich' mem is fairly universal, but let's look at who pays US Federal Income Tax.
Ranked by income -
The top 1% pay 38% of the total US Federal Income Tax take The top 5% pay 59% The top 10% pay 70.17% The bottom 50% pay 2.78%
The rich are not the problem. They are paying way way way more than their share.
I don't disagree, but when was an election last won on a promise to slash the taxes of the richest 1%!
Nobody is suggesting they do - but facts are facts. The lower 50% of American workers pay no tax. That's absurd. It's obviously broken. How you fix it is the challenge. I think it's flat tax time.
They pay tax, just not a great share of it and a flat tax is another argument entirely, it worked in some countries moving from communism to capitalism but introducing it in the west is a different matter, anyway off to bed night
The bottom 50% paying less than 3% is effectively no tax.
There is growing support for a flat tax.
They must be paying all sorts of other taxes though - sales taxes etc that you conveniently ignore. It has of course been one of the aims of neoliberalism to move taxes away from income and towards consumption.
Let me put this more simply: everyone pays sales tax and property tax, and the fact that 50% of American wage earners pay no income tax is simply wrong.
TimB Correct me if I am wrong, but sales and property taxes are local and state taxes only, not Federal, are they not? There is no Federal sales tax.
Nobody is suggesting they do - but facts are facts. The lower 50% of American workers pay no tax. That's absurd. It's obviously broken. How you fix it is the challenge. I think it's flat tax time.
What matters more than the percentage of how many workers pay no income tax (not 'no tax'), is at what income level they start paying tax. If 50% of a country pays no tax because it they are all living on a very low salary, then the problem is not the tax threshold but the incomes the bottom half of the population get.
I think that the point @Tim_B has made overnight is an important one and I am concerned that we are increasingly going down the same path. When 50% of the population don't pay for public services they have a built in bias to having more spent on them and voting for higher spending parties.
In this country it is anticipated that by 2020 something like 11% of the population will be on the new NMW and it is expected that they will not be paying tax. When you add in the extra 2-3 million (by then) who do pay tax but get much more back in tax credits it seems to me that we are in danger of creating a similar bias here.
I have always had reservations about taking people out of tax. I would much rather they paid a lower rate, such as Brown's 10% rate, than nothing at all because I believe they then have a greater interest in how the money is spent and how much of it is spent. I think, as with the GOP in the US, this may prove to be a strategic error for the Tories.
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
I'd be interested to know what the polling about British people is on that. As far as I'm aware no pollster ever has the balls to ask people. You wonder how much the English are bothered about the Scots any more. If they've grown disinterested in them it's fair to say they're not going to be too excited about Ulster. I think the place seems culturally alien to most Brits and I'm not convinced long term there'll be the desire to keep it in the UK. Maybe that's what the IRA learned. The Brits could be shifted on Irish politics so long as there weren't bombs being planted on the mainland.
I think there is a difference. Ulster is more pro union than anywhere else in the UK, Scotland is less pro union than anywhere else in the UK. I think the English notice that.
Ulster is more pro-Union than England and Wales? I doubt it. And what sort of unionism are they defending. More often than not it just seems like anti-Catholic bigotry. Nothing to do with what the Union means to most people on the mainland.
Ulster unionists' motivation is of no consequence to a lot of the English I'm sure. The flag is the cross of St George with the red hand - that is tribal and emotional. I've not know any Catholic Ulstermen but I have worked with Protestant Ulsterman (with no selection on my part) and the ones I've worked with have been passionate about UK union and fearful about the consequences of a united Ireland. I am neutral on this and merely report my very limited experience.
A lot of Irish Prods are like my wife, whose father was Irish while her mother was Scottish. She thinks of herself as "half and half".
So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?
More importantly, do you really want such people to be near power? Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne are all on record as supporting the IRA's aims, if not - explicitly - its methods. That is they believe a constituent part of the UK should be united with another country against the wishes of the majority of its population. Think about that: a PM, a Chancellor and their senior strategic adviser prepared to contemplate such a thing. Are Labour supporters on here really comfortable with that? I'm just not, I'm afraid.
I'd be interested to know what the polling about British people is on that. As far as I'm aware no pollster ever has the balls to ask people. You wonder how much the English are bothered about the Scots any more. If they've grown disinterested in them it's fair to say they're not going to be too excited about Ulster. I think the place seems culturally alien to most Brits and I'm not convinced long term there'll be the desire to keep it in the UK. Maybe that's what the IRA learned. The Brits could be shifted on Irish politics so long as there weren't bombs being planted on the mainland.
Funny you should ask.
38% wish Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK. 25% wish it to join the republic.
That’s 63% of responders. What were the others.... D/K’s, (or don’t give a stuff), or would prefer an independent state? (I suppose there could be “join an independent Scotland" in there somewhwere, too!)
That east Europeans should want to remember the deportations and killings of "class enemies" by the Soviet Union during and after the war is entirely understandable. So is their pressure on Russia to account, say, for the killing of Polish officers at Katyn – even if Soviet and Russian acknowledgment of Stalin's crimes already goes far beyond, for example, any such apologies by Britain or France for the crimes of colonialism.
But the pretence that Soviet repression reached anything like the scale or depths of Nazi savagery – or that the postwar "enslavement" of eastern Europe can be equated with wartime Nazi genocide – is a mendacity that tips towards Holocaust denial. It is certainly not a mistake that could have been made by the Auschwitz survivors liberated by the Red Army in 1945.
The real meaning of the attempt to equate Nazi genocide with Soviet repression is clearest in the Baltic republics, where collaboration with SS death squads and direct participation in the mass murder of Jews was at its most extreme, and politicians are at pains to turn perpetrators into victims.
he election about the economy and immigration they win, if not they lose.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion. That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is solved, as at present, with a Democrat President and GOP Congress). On immigration it is Hispanics who will turn out to vote on it, for most whites it is not the number 1 issue. Harper tried an anti immigrant niqab message yesterday and it bombed, very rarely does an anti immigrant message win elections as Hague and Howard discovered
Denmark and Switzerland say hello.
In neither country did an anti immigrant party win enough seats to form a government
Comments
"Labour is just going down into a very dark place.
50-55% back Right wing parties, and Corbyn reinforced that."
I'm sure if we'd chosen the charismatic Andy Burnham everything would look very different.
Faith is a substitute for evidence, in the absence of evidence. As Mr Llama says, it comes from within. It is another word for self-delusion.
'So can someone explain how giving an apologist for terrorism and a defender of a mass murdering dictator a key position of responsibility indicates that Labour is serious about governing?"
Maggie supported the Contras and her best friend was Pinochet for God's sake and she won three landslides
nor did I your PS
Wasn't that what I said?
TODAY State turned over 1300 pages of Amb. Stephens' emails. After 3 years of administration stone walling.
If the administration had been open and cooperative from the start, would we be in this position?
Obama has still not released his diary and itinerary for the time of the attack, and there is a gap in Hillary's emails covering the time of the attack.
When one sees stonewalling like this one is entitled to ask why.
There is growing support for a flat tax.
Yes - not in those words, but yes.
The whole thing about 'soaking the rich' is tax to the federal government. The state and local taxes lever off that.
What's your point?
38% wish Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK. 25% wish it to join the republic.
In this country it is anticipated that by 2020 something like 11% of the population will be on the new NMW and it is expected that they will not be paying tax. When you add in the extra 2-3 million (by then) who do pay tax but get much more back in tax credits it seems to me that we are in danger of creating a similar bias here.
I have always had reservations about taking people out of tax. I would much rather they paid a lower rate, such as Brown's 10% rate, than nothing at all because I believe they then have a greater interest in how the money is spent and how much of it is spent. I think, as with the GOP in the US, this may prove to be a strategic error for the Tories.
The economy maybe, but it is now growing under the Democrats, immigration gets the minority and Hispanic vote out for Hillary
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion.
That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the
More people agree with republicans about the economy and immigration than about gays or abortion.
That is the battlefield that favours conservatives world wide at the moment and america is no exception.
More people want taxes raised on the rich but controlled spending, it depends what question you ask (the issue is solved, as at present, with a Democrat President and GOP Congress). On immigration it is Hispanics who will turn out to vote on it, for most whites it is not the number 1 issue. Harper tried an anti immigrant niqab message yesterday and it bombed, very rarely does an anti immigrant message win elections as Hague and Howard discovered
Denmark and Switzerland say hello.
In neither country did an anti immigrant party win enough seats to form a government