I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
Well, thank you for ignoring those who took a more nuanced position on art in general in favour of pretending everyone was just a headbanging loon.
Honestly, while you see your views as more worthy than those of your opponents, given you are at the least just as partisan and blinkered, I don't see how you think you are being in any way less stubborn in terms of lack of critical discourse or openness to argument and thus more credible. You present everything as black and white, when it is not, with no acknowledgement of making a general argument that need not apply to everyone.
This will mark me as both smug and elitist, no doubt, but frankly i find even good points somewhat undermined when people allow no hint of doubt, no hint of self analysis, display nothing but superiority of tone, into their analyses. There are some on here, from various sides of the political spectrum and with a range of views on many subjects, who are as stubborn and pigheaded as their opponents on many issues. If such people are right, it is only ever by accident, since they have displayed no more reason than their opponents, they take positions as automatically as breathing.
Conversely, there are some who may well take broadly the same view on everything, and harshly as well, but still demonstrate awareness of the other position and more reason than 'it's awful' for why they dislike it, and thus are much more convincing. Not to single anyone out, but the previous thread is a good example I think - Mr Meeks has expressed himself at times in a very blinkered way on the EU issue I feel, but while he has a particular view here that people may well disagree with, on this occasion it is thoroughly and reasonably argued, and thus not easily dismissed, even if one disagrees.
I'd taken a bit of a break from PB, but I don't think it was long enough to be honest looking at that.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
You must be more persuasive in real life than in pixels if you can make someone look like a simpleton. And living the grockle expat life style in Tuscany doesn't turn you into Sir Harold fecking Acton.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
A bit like when we ask you about vibrant Italy's record on racism and migrants then, tyson.
I noticed the thread this morning on Modern Art...usual Brexit posters coalescing on another theme.
It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.
I had the misfortune to sit next to a Brexit fool the other day at a meal. First I despise people referring to themselves as Brexiters...as if there is anything chivalrous or noble about this squalid, nihilistic cause. But second, it was so easy to tear the idiot apart and make him look like a simpleton in front of his girlfriend. It is like arguing with children such is their complete lack of critical discourse, argument or credibility.
A bit like when we ask you about vibrant Italy's record on racism and migrants then, tyson.
In just the last 24 hours we have had compelling evidence that Clinton's IT man deliberately deleted e-mails that he had been ordered to deliver to the Senate Committee having asked online how to do so and we have seen equally compelling evidence that Trump was using charity money to buy off law suits against his commercial enterprises and buy portraits of himself.
In my opinion the only rational conclusion is that anyone who professes to know how this is going to end up is a fool. This is not like any election in any established democracy that I can recall. It is all about whose misdemeanours are deemed to have the greatest traction at the end of the day.
It's a real pigs-ear. I would say that (if guilty) Trump's was the worse - however the Democrats have got to build up the facts very quickly from scratch (and a 'they would say that, wouldn't they during a campaign' shrug from the voters) whereas Hillary's e-mail saga has been running for months.
' It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.'
My my we are in a strop to-day, not a toy left in the pram.
The poor bugger that had to sit next to you and listen to vapid bilge whilst trying to digest his meal, did he throw up ?
balance it vs WTO (if indeed we get anything that differs from WTO).
ie the question is - do you agree with the following deal we have negotiated with the EU. If yes, then we adopt the deal, if no then we revert to WTO status.
I am however against a second referendum because, first, BREXIT means too many things to too many people, and secondly, because it delays an already uncertain outcome.
We have a government, we voted to leave the EU, we should be happy for the government to negotiate on our behalf without coming back to us at each stage asking how many immigration points should be awarded for a love of Shakespeare.
I have little doubt that the deal we reach will put the UK in an imperceptibly worse position than the one we occupied as an EU member, but that is irrelevant now.
I agree WTO status is the no deal outcome.
Brexit meaning too many different things might be a motivation for supporting such a referendum (better the people thought it was something other than what I did than the government/establishment doing what suited it best).
How is asking voters to endorse the Brexit deal the government concludes blocking Brexit?
Depends on the implication of voters failing to endrose the deal. If the implication is that we get what the voters originally voted for (Brexit independent of any deal) but not the deal, then it doesn't block Brexit at all and is in my view perfectly reasonable. Indeed, this approach seems congruent with holding the original referendum in the first place.
If OTOH the implict assumption here is that rejecting the deal would mean no Brexit, then it is clearly designed to scotch Brexit (and indeed if suspected likely in advance of negotiations would incentivise those among the establishment strongly opposed to Brexit to accept a(nother) poor deal in the hope that it would be rejected).
I don't think that would be the case in practice. MPs would be voting in the context of a referendum mandating our resignation from the EU. They would have to justify any delay in triggering Article 50. At most it would force some clarity from the government on what their negotiating positions are on the single market, including devolved administrations, looking after special interest groups like farmers and such like. None of this is predetermined by the Leave vote. And the argument that Brexit is far too messy for the government to be accountable for anything at all - nonsense! Government and Parliament have to deliver on Brexit, even if it's just making the best of a bad job.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Au contraire, anti-elitism has gone mainstream.
"That means fighting against the burning injustice that if you’re born poor you will die on average nine years earlier than others.
If you’re black you are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.
If you’re a white working-class boy you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.
If you’re at a state school you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.
The government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.
When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws we will listen not to the mighty, but to you.
When it comes to taxes we will prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you."
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Au contraire, anti-elitism has gone mainstream.
"That means fighting against the burning injustice that if you’re born poor you will die on average nine years earlier than others.
If you’re black you are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.
If you’re a white working-class boy you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.
If you’re at a state school you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.
The government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.
When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws we will listen not to the mighty, but to you.
When it comes to taxes we will prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you."
Who said that, when?
Cameron or May I'd say (certainly post May 2015 Cameron's speech at conference was much more passionate about those same issues than attacking Corbyn). But wasn't that the point? Anti-elitism is very big, but the process of fighting anti-elitism is done by elites, in the ways elites think best.
...if it took as long as it takes to download an Apple update.
And don't you hate the way you click "agree" and then a little popup window appears and you have to click "agree" again? That alone would drive me to android if I weren't already there.
Just had a look, and yes, it is for the whole group including the racing team. I guess they figure too much of the innovation happens at the racing team to not buy it. I'd have thought Ferrari would be a better fit given they are a works manufacturer, though the Italian government might be uneasy if the prancing horse ended up in foreign hands. The UK government wouldn't be bothered if Apple bought McLaren, even though it probably should.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, and over 55% think Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in this country.
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
Elitist!
well the reason why 55% think Obama wasn't born in the USA is presumably because of the publicity given to Hillary Clinton's campaign team when they pushed this in 2008.
And I have to tell you there is such a thing as 'white slavery' - so being pro slavery is not being racist per se. But of course to a Democrat calling someone a 'racist' is the worst epithet they can hang on them.
Bullshit on the first point. It's Trump and the GOP talking about it for the last 8 years.
Second, in the USA, the poll question asked if it was wrong for slavery to have been abolished, to which 20%+ of trump supporters said 'YES'.
Well you have VERY selective information about the first one - it is all over the internet - as for the second - you are making a classical error in assuming that agreement to slavery is inherently racist (BTW The Koran is in favour of it and explains how to handle slaves appropriately - I suppose that makes all Muslims Racist).
Your 'argument' seems to go like this.
I Don't like peole who like slavery Anyone I don't like is racist Therefore anyone who approves of slavery is racist.
Surely u can see that slavery in America was based on race therefore if u agree it shouldn't have been abolished in the U.S u are indeed racist.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Yes many Trump supporters are indeed deplorable maybe not half probably more like 20% or so.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Au contraire, anti-elitism has gone mainstream.
"That means fighting against the burning injustice that if you’re born poor you will die on average nine years earlier than others.
If you’re black you are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.
If you’re a white working-class boy you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.
If you’re at a state school you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.
The government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.
When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws we will listen not to the mighty, but to you.
When it comes to taxes we will prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you."
Who said that, when?
Cameron or May I'd say (certainly post May 2015 Cameron's speech at conference was much more passionate about those same issues than attacking Corbyn). But wasn't that the point? Anti-elitism is very big, but the process of fighting anti-elitism is done by elites, in the ways elites think best.
Mr. glw, yes and no. Lots of hybrid stuff, recycling energy, electrical power etc. If Apple wants its own road cars, learning how to recycle heat and kinetic energy as per F1 would be very useful.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Surely the result in June shows otherwise. Maybe the problem is that the "elites" weren't listening hard enough.
The elite was running both campaigns. The idea that various newspaper owners and editors, cabinet ministers, lords of the realm, senior figures in the City and billionaire businessmen are not part of the elite is utterly risible.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, and over 55% think Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in this country.
So, y'know, calling them racist isn't entirely unreasonable.
Elitist!
well the reason why 55% think Obama wasn't born in the USA is presumably because of the publicity given to Hillary Clinton's campaign team when they pushed this in 2008.
And I have to tell you there is such a thing as 'white slavery' - so being pro slavery is not being racist per se. But of course to a Democrat calling someone a 'racist' is the worst epithet they can hang on them.
Bullshit on the first point. It's Trump and the GOP talking about it for the last 8 years.
Second, in the USA, the poll question asked if it was wrong for slavery to have been abolished, to which 20%+ of trump supporters said 'YES'.
What's wrong with slavery?
People are held against their will. Or is this some sort of a trick question?
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Au contraire, anti-elitism has gone mainstream.
"That means fighting against the burning injustice that if you’re born poor you will die on average nine years earlier than others.
If you’re black you are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.
If you’re a white working-class boy you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.
If you’re at a state school you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.
The government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.
When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws we will listen not to the mighty, but to you.
When it comes to taxes we will prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you."
Who said that, when?
Cameron or May I'd say (certainly post May 2015 Cameron's speech at conference was much more passionate about those same issues than attacking Corbyn). But wasn't that the point? Anti-elitism is very big, but the process of fighting anti-elitism is done by elites, in the ways elites think best.
May victory speech. Cam never went that far.
It has only just struck me that brexit was an anti-elitist, feck you vote, and that in putting in place a PM who made that speech, it actually worked.
One theory says that ostensible anti-elitism from the likes of May is in fact mere window dressing by the elitist lizards to stop the common people rising against them.
I would have thought that F1 didn't really fit Apple's image.
Overly expensive style over substance overshadowing genuine innovations? Fits like a glove.
An Apple iGlove which connects to the internet, tells the time and will totally revolutionise the world, despite still needing an iPhone to work and doing nothing new, but doing so stylishly.
Cameron or May I'd say (certainly post May 2015 Cameron's speech at conference was much more passionate about those same issues than attacking Corbyn). But wasn't that the point? Anti-elitism is very big, but the process of fighting anti-elitism is done by elites, in the ways elites think best.
Bingo! That's exactly the problem, the very people tasked with fixing things are those that benefit most and so are least inclined to real change. And that's why someone as racist, dim, and appallingly thatched as Trump is in with a chance, not because he will fix things, but because he might do enough damage that rebuilding is necessary.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Au contraire, anti-elitism has gone mainstream.
"That means fighting against the burning injustice that if you’re born poor you will die on average nine years earlier than others.
If you’re black you are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.
If you’re a white working-class boy you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.
If you’re at a state school you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.
The government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.
When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws we will listen not to the mighty, but to you.
When it comes to taxes we will prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you."
Who said that, when?
Cameron or May I'd say (certainly post May 2015 Cameron's speech at conference was much more passionate about those same issues than attacking Corbyn). But wasn't that the point? Anti-elitism is very big, but the process of fighting anti-elitism is done by elites, in the ways elites think best.
May victory speech. Cam never went that far.
It has only just struck me that brexit was an anti-elitist, feck you vote, and that in putting in place a PM who made that speech, it actually worked.
One theory says that ostensible anti-elitism from the likes of May is in fact mere window dressing by the elitist lizards to stop the common people rising against them.
Well, it might well be, but if it leads to genuine good it hardly matters why - same as benefits to public health in the mid-19th century.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
Yeah. It does seem that if Trump or hi supporters are being racist, it's elitist and snobbish to condemn for it.
Calling Trump a racist is reasonable enough, the mistake that Democrats are making is to call his supporters racists. There are a whole load of different reasons people are supporting Trump, and it is certainly not because America has suddenly become a vastly more racist country than it was when they voted for Obama in 2008. Even the dimmest Democrat supporter should be able to figure that out.
Yet many of them are indeed racists. Not all by any means, but many of them are.
20+% of trump supporter support slavery, .
So around 80% don't support slavery?
Er u can't be serious. If 20% of Muslims said they want shariah law in the UK would u say oh that's fine 80% don't want shariah in the UK. Somehow I doubt it. I can't believe the number of people here defending a poll finding saying 20% of Trump supporters support slavery, I wonder if they would be so sanguine if it were Muslims?
In just the last 24 hours we have had compelling evidence that Clinton's IT man deliberately deleted e-mails that he had been ordered to deliver to the Senate Committee having asked online how to do so and we have seen equally compelling evidence that Trump was using charity money to buy off law suits against his commercial enterprises and buy portraits of himself.
In my opinion the only rational conclusion is that anyone who professes to know how this is going to end up is a fool. This is not like any election in any established democracy that I can recall. It is all about whose misdemeanours are deemed to have the greatest traction at the end of the day.
Say if the result was Trump 47% Hillary 45% would those numbers on their own really look out of place with other elections where one party was in power for two terms and had a relatively weak economy. I don't think it does. Remember the GOP candidate only needed a small swing to win.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
In just the last 24 hours we have had compelling evidence that Clinton's IT man deliberately deleted e-mails that he had been ordered to deliver to the Senate Committee having asked online how to do so and we have seen equally compelling evidence that Trump was using charity money to buy off law suits against his commercial enterprises and buy portraits of himself.
In my opinion the only rational conclusion is that anyone who professes to know how this is going to end up is a fool. This is not like any election in any established democracy that I can recall. It is all about whose misdemeanours are deemed to have the greatest traction at the end of the day.
As I understand it - that's why he's now pleading the 5th rather than answer. He'd an immunity deal - but the deleting stuff after the deal is 'criminal intent' and a massive no-no, so his no longer applies.
WTF the FBI were doing here is a mystery. When a couple of kids from 4chan and Reddit can work out he's StoneTear - why didn't they?
IIRC the Trump charity purchase was about $20k - it didn't' benefit him. That seems a different order of magnitude. Happy to be corrected.
David Miliband has a clear answer to the question I floated the other day - do Labour rightwingers oppose Jeremy Corbyn because they dislike his aims or because they think his methods won't work?
The Tate bought the "exhibit" when it was quite a few years old. We're talking here about the equivalent of a fine wine. But you're right, you clearly understand the value of shit better then I do.
Mr Topping asked me earlier about War and Peace in the original Russian and I had to go out before I could reply so ...
War and peace in the original Russian is art War and Peace in the English translation (if done well) is art. A blank page is modern art.
I suspect this is a case of ne'er the twain shall meet. Oops! I expect Kipling was a racist too.
David Miliband has a clear answer to the question I floated the other day - do Labour rightwingers oppose Jeremy Corbyn because they dislike his aims or because they think his methods won't work?
It has been a problem for them from the start. Either because they do like his aims, or because they wanted to convince the membership they liked those aims but that Corbyn could not realise them, they have by and large presented as trying to be the same, but better. It's a tougher sell.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
Buy Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
LOL.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters. Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
The Tate bought the "exhibit" when it was quite a few years old. We're talking here about the equivalent of a fine wine. But you're right, you clearly understand the value of shit better then I do.
Mr Topping asked me earlier about War and Peace in the original Russian and I had to go out before I could reply so ...
War and peace in the original Russian is art War and Peace in the English translation (if done well) is art. A blank page is modern art.
I suspect this is a case of ne'er the twain shall meet. Oops! I expect Kipling was a racist too.
You need to experience Kipling in the original Klingon English:
Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat; But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
As I understand it - that's why he's now pleading the 5th rather than answer. He'd an immunity deal - but the deleting stuff after the deal is 'criminal intent' and a massive no-no, so his no longer applies.
WTF the FBI were doing here is a mystery. When a couple of kids from 4chan and Reddit can work out he's StoneTear - why didn't they?
If you wanted to get a bit TFH you might say that they didn't look very hard.
Among many PBers it is now considered 'elitist' to:
• Say that leaving the EU was bad for Britain • Dislike Trump and his supporters • Live in London • Live in Manchester • Consider Jeremy Kyle awful TV • Like the BBC • Call racists racists
Voted to leave.
Live in London.
Not a huge fan of Trump (but sympathise with his supporters in a lot of cases).
Find daytime TV awful. Jeremy Kyle is surely the worst of the lot.
Ambivalent about the BBC. Think a subscription model would suit it better and allow it to be more like HBO.
I guess I'm a minority, but most people think Indians (and Jews) are far too successful to be considered a minority group in the traditional sense of needing protection from the majority. I also think the definition of racism is far too wide and shouldn't include people who make the choice to believe in some kind of wizard who lives in space and tells them to kill other people.
@Max, you are a member of the elite, you just don't know it yet.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
Buy Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Are you talking about the 600s?
I was talking about more recent history (David Livingstone was a campaigner against Arab slavers). The distinction is between slavery as a way of using up the conquered, and slavery as part of a system which creates demand for new slaves (e.g. by planting sugar cane).
Iff it is Pennsylvania then Trump won't get it** - the polls have stubbornly remained pro-Clinton. Assuming Trump picks up Nevada and North Carolina (not gimmees by any stretch of the book but more favourable polling) then he needs one of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin where there has been more movement. (Barring e.g. Maine/ New Hampshire/ New Mexico/ Rhode Island or similar remote but non-zero possibilities)
Basically he has a very narrow route to 270 and some of the states are very rickety bridges. We'll have some idea this time next week when polls start reflecting the 1st debate (although there will be a time-lag). For instance the polls are dropping back for Trump as the Clinton Collapse fades into the background. His hope is that they will plateau at a substantially higher level than pre September 11th. But Romney was ahead of Obama post 1st debate, wasn't he?
* Barring 'Shy Trumpers' or a failed polling methodology** - if there are any.
** Missing people from the polls who decide to vote Republican
If Nate is right, the thing we have to look out for on the night is turnout in Philly. At 1,553,000, it is 5 times larger than the next biggest city (Pittsburgh) and 13 times larger than the 3rd largest city, Allentown. If turnout is low there, it is very bad news for Hillary.
How much does the rest of Pennsylvania hate Philly? Many of the most restrictive laws passed in Harrisburg (capital, population 50,000) apply only to cities in PA with a population of more than 1 million, i.e. only apply to Philly.
Bet Trump wishes the course of the Delaware would shift a mile or so so that Philly falls into New Jersey.
Wait a second Hillary is relying on the big cities but don't the majority of Americans live outside the Philadelphia's like in England the vast majority live outside of London and the met borough's.
Hillary's votes are concentrated in the big cities. It does not mean that she has no votes outside the cities and the champagne socialist 'burbs, but she does not win those other areas. Philly is 1/8th of the vote in Pennsylvania. It would take a fool not to see that a good turn out there is important for Hillary.
None of the ideas seem good. A race weekend is quite long enough with a day for practice, a day split between final practice and qualifying, and a race day.
Imagine the Premier League with a match that involved celebrity guests and no points on offer.
Are UKIP reduced to claiming that getting 2% somewhere they didn't stand last time is some kind of progress?
If it is in one of their weakest areas of Cardiff of course as building a presence there helps them in the City overall
No idea what their strength is in Plasnewydd, but as I wrote earlier it's a mix of WWC, first and second generation Asian migrants, European migrants, students (lots), and hipsters. It's very inner city tightly packed 1880's two bed terraces about tens mins walk from the main University. Draw whatever conclusions you can. No idea what past voting patterns were.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
Buy Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
LOL.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters. Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
tyson starts conversations here by saying, roughly, all leave voters are neanderthal racists and pb ones are the worst. You do the same with your creakingly unimaginative insult about brexit and shit. If you hand it out, you have to be prepared to take it.
I voted leave btw, before you waste further fire on me.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
Buy Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Why are u kinking me this. People justified slavery in the slave trade by the Bible then they justified its abolition by the same Bible. Doesn't take away what I wrote in the previous post.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
LOL.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters. Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
tyson starts conversations here by saying, roughly, all leave voters are neanderthal racists and pb ones are the worst. You do the same with your creakingly unimaginative insult about brexit and shit. If you hand it out, you have to be prepared to take it.
I voted leave btw, before you waste further fire on me.
So basically, you can't be bothered to debate or listen to alternative points of view.
Perhaps Mr Smithson could set up a Brexiters only PB.com where you can pretend 48% of the country have disappeared?
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
Buy Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Are you talking about the 600s?
I was talking about more recent history (David Livingstone was a campaigner against Arab slavers). The distinction is between slavery as a way of using up the conquered, and slavery as part of a system which creates demand for new slaves (e.g. by planting sugar cane).
So presumably you would prefer a system that creates a demand for new slaves - as at least some slaves have to be treated fairly so they can reproduce.
(It can be argued that slavery killed off the Roman Empire since its source as cheap power meant there was no incentive to develop steam-driven machinery.)
Wikipedia:
In the early 21st century some scholars had noted an "ominous and disturbing development" of "reopening" of the issue of slavery by some conservative Islamic scholars after its "closing" earlier in the 20th century. In 2003 Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member at that time of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, issued a fatwa stating “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam,” and that anyone who says otherwise "is an infidel.”
In just the last 24 hours we have had compelling evidence that Clinton's IT man deliberately deleted e-mails that he had been ordered to deliver to the Senate Committee having asked online how to do so and we have seen equally compelling evidence that Trump was using charity money to buy off law suits against his commercial enterprises and buy portraits of himself.
In my opinion the only rational conclusion is that anyone who professes to know how this is going to end up is a fool. This is not like any election in any established democracy that I can recall. It is all about whose misdemeanours are deemed to have the greatest traction at the end of the day.
As I understand it - that's why he's now pleading the 5th rather than answer. He'd an immunity deal - but the deleting stuff after the deal is 'criminal intent' and a massive no-no, so his no longer applies.
WTF the FBI were doing here is a mystery. When a couple of kids from 4chan and Reddit can work out he's StoneTear - why didn't they?
IIRC the Trump charity purchase was about $20k - it didn't' benefit him. That seems a different order of magnitude. Happy to be corrected.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
LOL.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters. Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
tyson starts conversations here by saying, roughly, all leave voters are neanderthal racists and pb ones are the worst. You do the same with your creakingly unimaginative insult about brexit and shit. If you hand it out, you have to be prepared to take it.
I voted leave btw, before you waste further fire on me.
So basically, you can't be bothered to debate or listen to alternative points of view.
Perhaps Mr Smithson could set up a Brexiters only PB.com where you can pretend 48% of the country have disappeared?
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Surely the result in June shows otherwise. Maybe the problem is that the "elites" weren't listening hard enough.
The elite was running both campaigns. The idea that various newspaper owners and editors, cabinet ministers, lords of the realm, senior figures in the City and billionaire businessmen are not part of the elite is utterly risible.
The term elite is used on here (and in some of the more wacko quarters of the public) as a byword for anyone with moderate, open, pro-business views. I was told the other day by a family member that people who voted Remain were obsessed with money, hence why Londoners voted Remain.
Look at PB – any and all of the following are regularly described as elitist by the niche Kipper-Leaver-Corbynite-Trumper loons who frequent this site these days:
• Blairites • Cameroons • Students • Old Labour moderates • Londoners • Soft Brexiteers • Anyone with a big mortgage • Liberal Democrats • Europhiles • Academics • Anyone who is expert in anything • Anyone who believes in global warming • and... modern art fans
We are routinely treated the spectacle of SeanT – a man who enjoys a thriving weekend career as a token rightwinger recruited by Agnes B-clad hostesses to enliven their north London dinner parties – frothing about 'the elite', as if Président butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Meanwhile, Plato, who by all accounts rattles around in a large house in Surrey, commands us to burnish our plebeian credentials by taking in daily doses of Jeremy Kyle.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
LOL.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters. Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
tyson starts conversations here by saying, roughly, all leave voters are neanderthal racists and pb ones are the worst. You do the same with your creakingly unimaginative insult about brexit and shit. If you hand it out, you have to be prepared to take it.
I voted leave btw, before you waste further fire on me.
So basically, you can't be bothered to debate or listen to alternative points of view.
Perhaps Mr Smithson could set up a Brexiters only PB.com where you can pretend 48% of the country have disappeared?
Read what I said.
The bit about your voting Leave? The bit where you say Tyson calls Leavers neanderthals? Or the bit where you didn't like my Brexit = Manzoni tins joke?
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Surely the result in June shows otherwise. Maybe the problem is that the "elites" weren't listening hard enough.
The elite was running both campaigns. The idea that various newspaper owners and editors, cabinet ministers, lords of the realm, senior figures in the City and billionaire businessmen are not part of the elite is utterly risible.
The term elite is used on here (and in some of the more wacko quarters of the public) as a byword for anyone with moderate, open, pro-business views. I was told the other day by a family member that people who voted Remain were obsessed with money, hence why Londoners voted Remain.
Look at PB – any and all of the following are regularly described as elitist by the niche Kipper-Leaver-Corbynite-Trumper loons who frequent this site these days:
• Blairites • Cameroons • Students • Old Labour moderates • Londoners • Soft Brexiteers • Anyone with a big mortgage • Liberal Democrats • Europhiles • Academics • Anyone who is expert in anything • Anyone who believes in global warming • and... modern art fans
We are routinely treated the spectacle of SeanT – a man who enjoys a thriving weekend career as a token rightwinger recruited by Agnes B-clad hostesses to enliven their north London dinner parties – frothing about 'the elite', as if Président butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Meanwhile, Plato, who by all accounts rattles around in a large house in Surrey, commands us to burnish our plebeian credentials by taking in daily doses of Jeremy Kyle.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
Buy Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Are you talking about the 600s?
I was talking about more recent history (David Livingstone was a campaigner against Arab slavers). The distinction is between slavery as a way of using up the conquered, and slavery as part of a system which creates demand for new slaves (e.g. by planting sugar cane).
Yes I was talking about what to do with prisoners of war when a whole area is conquered. I agree there was a persuasive argument for it back then. Not so much now.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
Buy Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Are you talking about the 600s?
I was talking about more recent history (David Livingstone was a campaigner against Arab slavers). The distinction is between slavery as a way of using up the conquered, and slavery as part of a system which creates demand for new slaves (e.g. by planting sugar cane).
So presumably you would prefer a system that creates a demand for new slaves - as at least some slaves have to be treated fairly so they can reproduce.
(It can be argued that slavery killed off the Roman Empire since its source as cheap power meant there was no incentive to develop steam-driven machinery.)
Wikipedia:
In the early 21st century some scholars had noted an "ominous and disturbing development" of "reopening" of the issue of slavery by some conservative Islamic scholars after its "closing" earlier in the 20th century. In 2003 Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member at that time of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, issued a fatwa stating “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam,” and that anyone who says otherwise "is an infidel.”
Bloody hell I wouldn't prefer any sort of arrangement involving any sort of slavery at all, I was just talking about the history of it. But the distinction is between using slaves to do the jobs which always need doing (housework, farming of existing farmland) and creating new enterprises which depend on a permanent influx of new slaves (plantations, silver mines).
PS the silver mines example is Laurion (ancient Athens) so my classical/recent distinction probably doesn't work.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
LOL.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters. Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
tyson starts conversations here by saying, roughly, all leave voters are neanderthal racists and pb ones are the worst. You do the same with your creakingly unimaginative insult about brexit and shit. If you hand it out, you have to be prepared to take it.
I voted leave btw, before you waste further fire on me.
So basically, you can't be bothered to debate or listen to alternative points of view.
Perhaps Mr Smithson could set up a Brexiters only PB.com where you can pretend 48% of the country have disappeared?
Read what I said.
The bit about your voting Leave? The bit where you say Tyson calls Leavers neanderthals? Or the bit where you didn't like my Brexit = Manzoni tins joke?
All of it. In bite-size chunks if it's too much to tackle in one go.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Surely the result in June shows otherwise. Maybe the problem is that the "elites" weren't listening hard enough.
The elite was running both campaigns. The idea that various newspaper owners and editors, cabinet ministers, lords of the realm, senior figures in the City and billionaire businessmen are not part of the elite is utterly risible.
The term elite is used on here (and in some of the more wacko quarters of the public) as a byword for anyone with moderate, open, pro-business views. I was told the other day by a family member that people who voted Remain were obsessed with money, hence why Londoners voted Remain.
Look at PB – any and all of the following are regularly described as elitist by the niche Kipper-Leaver-Corbynite-Trumper loons who frequent this site these days:
• Blairites • Cameroons • Students • Old Labour moderates • Londoners • Soft Brexiteers • Anyone with a big mortgage • Liberal Democrats • Europhiles • Academics • Anyone who is expert in anything • Anyone who believes in global warming • and... modern art fans
We are routinely treated the spectacle of SeanT – a man who enjoys a thriving weekend career as a token rightwinger recruited by Agnes B-clad hostesses to enliven their north London dinner parties – frothing about 'the elite', as if Président butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Meanwhile, Plato, who by all accounts rattles around in a large house in Surrey, commands us to burnish our plebeian credentials by taking in daily doses of Jeremy Kyle.
....We are routinely treated the spectacle of SeanT – a man who enjoys a thriving weekend career as a token rightwinger recruited by Agnes B-clad hostesses to enliven their north London dinner parties – frothing about 'the elite', as if Président butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. ...
I think SeanT must definitely be a member of the elite, given that he treated us to a discussion of which marque of champagne is most appropriate for stimulation of a lady's nipples (Pommery, if memory serves me correctly). The non-elite equivalent would presumably be diet Coke or perhaps Irn-Bru.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
But Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Why are you linking me this. People justified slavery in the slave trade by the Bible then they justified its abolition by the same Bible. Doesn't take away what I wrote in the previous post.
The last half-dozen or so countries to abolish slavery are all Muslim-majority
Are there approved Leaver and Remainer whiskies and wines? Just so that I can make sure that I don't slip up accidentally.
Art disclosure: I rather like the bricks but have a complete blind spot on Cy Twombly. And I reserve the right to enjoy Turner, Constable and Stubbs.
All whiskies are out because of the jocks. Wines have to be from South Africa or NZ. Australian wines are OK too, so long as covered by Robert Parker's "points-based system".
Of your art choices, I'm afraid Twombly is beyond the pale. Only Constable and Stubbs truly pass muster - Turner shows dangerous abstract tendencies.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
LOL.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters. Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
tyson starts conversations here by saying, roughly, all leave voters are neanderthal racists and pb ones are the worst. You do the same with your creakingly unimaginative insult about brexit and shit. If you hand it out, you have to be prepared to take it.
I voted leave btw, before you waste further fire on me.
So basically, you can't be bothered to debate or listen to alternative points of view.
Perhaps Mr Smithson could set up a Brexiters only PB.com where you can pretend 48% of the country have disappeared?
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Surely the result in June shows otherwise. Maybe the problem is that the "elites" weren't listening hard enough.
The elite was running both campaigns. The idea that various newspaper owners and editors, cabinet ministers, lords of the realm, senior figures in the City and billionaire businessmen are not part of the elite is utterly risible.
The term elite is used on here (and in some of the more wacko quarters of the public) as a byword for anyone with moderate, open, pro-business views. I was told the other day by a family member that people who voted Remain were obsessed with money, hence why Londoners voted Remain.
Look at PB – any and all of the following are regularly described as elitist by the niche Kipper-Leaver-Corbynite-Trumper loons who frequent this site these days:
• Blairites • Cameroons • Students • Old Labour moderates • Londoners • Soft Brexiteers • Anyone with a big mortgage • Liberal Democrats • Europhiles • Academics • Anyone who is expert in anything • Anyone who believes in global warming • and... modern art fans
We are routinely treated the spectacle of SeanT – a man who enjoys a thriving weekend career as a token rightwinger recruited by Agnes B-clad hostesses to enliven their north London dinner parties – frothing about 'the elite', as if Président butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Meanwhile, Plato, who by all accounts rattles around in a large house in Surrey, commands us to burnish our plebeian credentials by taking in daily doses of Jeremy Kyle.
....We are routinely treated the spectacle of SeanT – a man who enjoys a thriving weekend career as a token rightwinger recruited by Agnes B-clad hostesses to enliven their north London dinner parties – frothing about 'the elite', as if Président butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. ...
I think SeanT must definitely be a member of the elite, given that he treated us to a discussion of which marque of champagne is most appropriate for stimulation of a lady's nipples (Pommery, if memory serves me correctly). The non-elite equivalent would presumably be diet Coke or perhaps Irn-Bru.
Tizer, Richard.
Irn Bru is Scottish, ergo verboten, and Diet Coke is for slimmers (thin people are part of the elite).
Just had a look, and yes, it is for the whole group including the racing team. I guess they figure too much of the innovation happens at the racing team to not buy it. I'd have thought Ferrari would be a better fit given they are a works manufacturer, though the Italian government might be uneasy if the prancing horse ended up in foreign hands. The UK government wouldn't be bothered if Apple bought McLaren, even though it probably should.
Would hope any takeover preserves its UK HQ. A lovely building and a great business for the glorious town of Woking.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
LOL.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters. Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
If you hand it out, you have to be prepared to take it.
Quite so. That's one reason I prefer not to hand it out.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Surely the result in June shows otherwise. Maybe the problem is that the "elites" weren't listening hard enough.
The elite was running both campaigns. The idea that various newspaper owners and editors, cabinet ministers, lords of the realm, senior figures in the City and billionaire businessmen are not part of the elite is utterly risible.
The term elite is used on here (and in some of the more wacko quarters of the public) as a byword for anyone with moderate, open, pro-business views. I was told the other day by a family member that people who voted Remain were obsessed with money, hence why Londoners voted Remain.
Look at PB – any and all of the following are regularly described as elitist by the niche Kipper-Leaver-Corbynite-Trumper loons who frequent this site these days:
• Blairites • Cameroons • Students • Old Labour moderates • Londoners • Soft Brexiteers • Anyone with a big mortgage • Liberal Democrats • Europhiles • Academics • Anyone who is expert in anything • Anyone who believes in global warming • and... modern art fans
We are routinely treated the spectacle of SeanT – a man who enjoys a thriving weekend career as a token rightwinger recruited by Agnes B-clad hostesses to enliven their north London dinner parties – frothing about 'the elite', as if Président butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Meanwhile, Plato, who by all accounts rattles around in a large house in Surrey, commands us to burnish our plebeian credentials by taking in daily doses of Jeremy Kyle.
Now SeanT lives in Primrose Hill, he is part of the elite whether he likes it or not :-)
Iff it is Pennsylvania then Trump won't get it** - the polls have stubbornly remained pro-Clinton. Assuming Trump picks up Nevada and North Carolina (not gimmees by any stretch of the book but more favourable polling) then he needs one of Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin where there has been more movement. (Barring e.g. Maine/ New Hampshire/ New Mexico/ Rhode Island or similar remote but non-zero possibilities)
Basically he has a very narrow route to 270 and some of the states are very rickety bridges. We'll have some idea this time next week when polls start reflecting the 1st debate (although there will be a time-lag). For instance the polls are dropping back for Trump as the Clinton Collapse fades into the background. His hope is that they will plateau at a substantially higher level than pre September 11th. But Romney was ahead of Obama post 1st debate, wasn't he?
* Barring 'Shy Trumpers' or a failed polling methodology** - if there are any.
** Missing people from the polls who decide to vote Republican
If Nate is right, the thing we have to look out for on the night is turnout in Philly. At 1,553,000, it is 5 times larger than the next biggest city (Pittsburgh) and 13 times larger than the 3rd largest city, Allentown. If turnout is low there, it is very bad news for Hillary.
How much does the rest of Pennsylvania hate Philly? Many of the most restrictive laws passed in Harrisburg (capital, population 50,000) apply only to cities in PA with a population of more than 1 million, i.e. only apply to Philly.
Bet Trump wishes the course of the Delaware would shift a mile or so so that Philly falls into New Jersey.
Wait a second Hillary is relying on the big cities but don't the majority of Americans live outside the Philadelphia's like in England the vast majority live outside of London and the met borough's.
Hillary's votes are concentrated in the big cities. It does not mean that she has no votes outside the cities and the champagne socialist 'burbs, but she does not win those other areas. Philly is 1/8th of the vote in Pennsylvania. It would take a fool not to see that a good turn out there is important for Hillary.
When is the first big city's result coming out to give us an idea of turnout compared to rural areas? Is Maine a good indicator ?
Are there approved Leaver and Remainer whiskies and wines? Just so that I can make sure that I don't slip up accidentally.
Art disclosure: I rather like the bricks but have a complete blind spot on Cy Twombly. And I reserve the right to enjoy Turner, Constable and Stubbs.
All whiskies are out because of the jocks. Wines have to be from South Africa or NZ. Australian wines are OK too, so long as covered by Robert Parker's "points-based system".
Of your art choices, I'm afraid Twombly is beyond the pale. Only Constable and Stubbs truly pass muster - Turner shows dangerous abstract tendencies.
Scotland is not the only place that produces whisky.
Manzoni died in the early 60s. So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
Golly, someone even thicker and less well-informed than tyson. Now I really have seen everything.
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
LOL.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters. Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
tyson starts conversations here by saying, roughly, all leave voters are neanderthal racists and pb ones are the worst. You do the same with your creakingly unimaginative insult about brexit and shit. If you hand it out, you have to be prepared to take it.
I voted leave btw, before you waste further fire on me.
So basically, you can't be bothered to debate or listen to alternative points of view.
Perhaps Mr Smithson could set up a Brexiters only PB.com where you can pretend 48% of the country have disappeared?
Read what I said.
The bit about your voting Leave? The bit where you say Tyson calls Leavers neanderthals? Or the bit where you didn't like my Brexit = Manzoni tins joke?
All of it. In bite-size chunks if it's too much to tackle in one go.
In just the last 24 hours we have had compelling evidence that Clinton's IT man deliberately deleted e-mails that he had been ordered to deliver to the Senate Committee having asked online how to do so and we have seen equally compelling evidence that Trump was using charity money to buy off law suits against his commercial enterprises and buy portraits of himself.
In my opinion the only rational conclusion is that anyone who professes to know how this is going to end up is a fool. This is not like any election in any established democracy that I can recall. It is all about whose misdemeanours are deemed to have the greatest traction at the end of the day.
As I understand it - that's why he's now pleading the 5th rather than answer. He'd an immunity deal - but the deleting stuff after the deal is 'criminal intent' and a massive no-no, so his no longer applies.
WTF the FBI were doing here is a mystery. When a couple of kids from 4chan and Reddit can work out he's StoneTear - why didn't they?
IIRC the Trump charity purchase was about $20k - it didn't' benefit him. That seems a different order of magnitude. Happy to be corrected.
I think the problem is that Trump donated charitable donations in lieu of lawsuits. The donations appear to have been given to other charities so the argument is that Trump avoided lawsuits by using other people's money. (Although he himself received none of it)
I like this comment "Then, he transformed the Trump Foundation into something rarely seen in the world of philanthropy: a name-branded foundation whose namesake provides none of its money."
I can't think of any other Foundation in the USA that is name-branded.
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
But Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Why are you linking me this. People justified slavery in the slave trade by the Bible then they justified its abolition by the same Bible. Doesn't take away what I wrote in the previous post.
The last half-dozen or so countries to abolish slavery are all Muslim-majority
The Bible also includes guidance on the use of slaves (OK to enslave non-Israelites, not OK to enslave Israelites). For some reason the rightwing headbangers always alight on the Koran when looking for scriptural authority for such behaviour.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
There's a persuasive theory that in classical/biblical times enslaving the conquered was the humane alternative to killing them. I think there is something in that and that some flavours of ancient slavery were by orders of magnitude less evil than the European and Arab African slave trade of modern history.
Buy Muslims use that exact same reason for why slavery was a fact if life then as well.
Are you talking about the 600s?
I was talking about more recent history (David Livingstone was a campaigner against Arab slavers). The distinction is between slavery as a way of using up the conquered, and slavery as part of a system which creates demand for new slaves (e.g. by planting sugar cane).
Yes I was talking about what to do with prisoners of war when a whole area is conquered. I agree there was a persuasive argument for it back then. Not so much now.
In WWII all sides made enthusiastic use of PoWs as a labour source.
For example, down the road from where I now live was a substantial camp for Italian PoWs who were loaned to local farmers for work on the fields. On the other side one of my uncles spent the latter part of 1944 and the beginning of 1945 working in a mine in Poland at the non-negotiable request of his German captors.
The most amusing thing about all this talk about elites in the UK and the US is that ordinary people never get involved in the discussion.
Surely the result in June shows otherwise. Maybe the problem is that the "elites" weren't listening hard enough.
The elite was running both campaigns. The idea that various newspaper owners and editors, cabinet ministers, lords of the realm, senior figures in the City and billionaire businessmen are not part of the elite is utterly risible.
The term elite is used on here (and in some of the more wacko quarters of the public) as a byword for anyone with moderate, open, pro-business views. I was told the other day by a family member that people who voted Remain were obsessed with money, hence why Londoners voted Remain.
Look at PB – any and all of the following are regularly described as elitist by the niche Kipper-Leaver-Corbynite-Trumper loons who frequent this site these days:
• Blairites • Cameroons • Students • Old Labour moderates • Londoners • Soft Brexiteers • Anyone with a big mortgage • Liberal Democrats • Europhiles • Academics • Anyone who is expert in anything • Anyone who believes in global warming • and... modern art fans
We are routinely treated the spectacle of SeanT – a man who enjoys a thriving weekend career as a token rightwinger recruited by Agnes B-clad hostesses to enliven their north London dinner parties – frothing about 'the elite', as if Président butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Meanwhile, Plato, who by all accounts rattles around in a large house in Surrey, commands us to burnish our plebeian credentials by taking in daily doses of Jeremy Kyle.
Now SeanT lives in Primrose Hill, he is part of the elite whether he likes it or not :-)
Na, it is possible to live in Primrose Hill and remain in touch with the average men and women of this country. Once you have lost touch with them or end up despising them you can be considered a metro elite.
Comments
Honestly, while you see your views as more worthy than those of your opponents, given you are at the least just as partisan and blinkered, I don't see how you think you are being in any way less stubborn in terms of lack of critical discourse or openness to argument and thus more credible. You present everything as black and white, when it is not, with no acknowledgement of making a general argument that need not apply to everyone.
This will mark me as both smug and elitist, no doubt, but frankly i find even good points somewhat undermined when people allow no hint of doubt, no hint of self analysis, display nothing but superiority of tone, into their analyses. There are some on here, from various sides of the political spectrum and with a range of views on many subjects, who are as stubborn and pigheaded as their opponents on many issues. If such people are right, it is only ever by accident, since they have displayed no more reason than their opponents, they take positions as automatically as breathing.
Conversely, there are some who may well take broadly the same view on everything, and harshly as well, but still demonstrate awareness of the other position and more reason than 'it's awful' for why they dislike it, and thus are much more convincing. Not to single anyone out, but the previous thread is a good example I think - Mr Meeks has expressed himself at times in a very blinkered way on the EU issue I feel, but while he has a particular view here that people may well disagree with, on this occasion it is thoroughly and reasonably argued, and thus not easily dismissed, even if one disagrees.
I'd taken a bit of a break from PB, but I don't think it was long enough to be honest looking at that.
You must be more persuasive in real life than in pixels if you can make someone look like a simpleton. And living the grockle expat life style in Tuscany doesn't turn you into Sir Harold fecking Acton.
' It seems like anything that has any good about it..art, culture, compassion for others (i.e. immigrants, poor people), collectivity, solidarity, the Pope, trying to save the planet.....has a big target on it from this group of destructive, headbanging, morons.'
My my we are in a strop to-day, not a toy left in the pram.
The poor bugger that had to sit next to you and listen to vapid bilge whilst trying to digest his meal, did he throw up ?
Will we have an Apple F1 team?
Brexit meaning too many different things might be a motivation for supporting such a referendum (better the people thought it was something other than what I did than the government/establishment doing what suited it best).
I'm pretty ambivalent.
"That means fighting against the burning injustice that if you’re born poor you will die on average nine years earlier than others.
If you’re black you are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.
If you’re a white working-class boy you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.
If you’re at a state school you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.
The government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.
When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws we will listen not to the mighty, but to you.
When it comes to taxes we will prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you."
Who said that, when?
...if it took as long as it takes to download an Apple update.
I assume you're a fan of conceptual art.
Could you enlighten me, please? I don't see why anyone would pay a small fortune for a tin of the artists shit. It wasn't you was it?
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/manzoni-artists-shit-t07667
I wonder if the team would stay based here. I'd guess so, but it can't be guaranteed.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Yes many Trump supporters are indeed deplorable maybe not half probably more like 20% or so.
It has only just struck me that brexit was an anti-elitist, feck you vote, and that in putting in place a PM who made that speech, it actually worked.
One theory says that ostensible anti-elitism from the likes of May is in fact mere window dressing by the elitist lizards to stop the common people rising against them.
An Apple iGlove which connects to the internet, tells the time and will totally revolutionise the world, despite still needing an iPhone to work and doing nothing new, but doing so stylishly.
It should be baffling but it really isn't.
Meanwhile, I see we are enjoined downthread not to be beastly to kippers.
So this "modern art" some people are getting so het up about is actually over 50 years old.
I'm sure there's a analogy to be made between Brexit and tinned shit somewhere...
In standard art-historical terms "Modern art includes artistic work produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era". (wiki)
I think you are looking for the word "contemporary" but are put off by the number of syllables.
WTF the FBI were doing here is a mystery. When a couple of kids from 4chan and Reddit can work out he's StoneTear - why didn't they?
IIRC the Trump charity purchase was about $20k - it didn't' benefit him. That seems a different order of magnitude. Happy to be corrected.
Owen Smith has shortened to the 'almost expensive' prices of 34 / 46 on Betfair.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramovitch/status/778091768793407488/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/778614925002498048
The Tate bought the "exhibit" when it was quite a few years old. We're talking here about the equivalent of a fine wine. But you're right, you clearly understand the value of shit better then I do.
Mr Topping asked me earlier about War and Peace in the original Russian and I had to go out before I could reply so ...
War and peace in the original Russian is art
War and Peace in the English translation (if done well) is art.
A blank page is modern art.
I suspect this is a case of ne'er the twain shall meet. Oops! I expect Kipling was a racist too.
Toriespart of the Elite now....- Dubya, 2000.
I doubt most of the folks on here could give you the chronology of Modern Art, and I wouldn't have described them as "thick" for not being able to do so.
My point though is simply that the complaints about "Modern Art", or even modern art (uncapitalised) heard this morning remind me of the sneering bluster from the hard Brexiters.
Both driven by the same narrow minded impulses.
By the way, why is OK to be so incredibly rude to Tyson? Is it some weird PB ritual, like claiming "First". Living in Italy seems to be the main complaint --- is that to be deplored in this brave Brexit world?
https://twitter.com/LauraLeslie23/status/778613024001232896
KlingonEnglish:Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
I was talking about more recent history (David Livingstone was a campaigner against Arab slavers). The distinction is between slavery as a way of using up the conquered, and slavery as part of a system which creates demand for new slaves (e.g. by planting sugar cane).
When will the so-called "progressives" in Labour and the LibDems have a female leader?
None of the ideas seem good. A race weekend is quite long enough with a day for practice, a day split between final practice and qualifying, and a race day.
Imagine the Premier League with a match that involved celebrity guests and no points on offer.
*sighs*
I must be off. *sighs*
I voted leave btw, before you waste further fire on me.
Perhaps Mr Smithson could set up a Brexiters only PB.com where you can pretend 48% of the country have disappeared?
(It can be argued that slavery killed off the Roman Empire since its source as cheap power meant there was no incentive to develop steam-driven machinery.)
Wikipedia:
In the early 21st century some scholars had noted an "ominous and disturbing development" of "reopening" of the issue of slavery by some conservative Islamic scholars after its "closing" earlier in the 20th century. In 2003 Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member at that time of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, issued a fatwa stating “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam,” and that anyone who says otherwise "is an infidel.”
The term elite is used on here (and in some of the more wacko quarters of the public) as a byword for anyone with moderate, open, pro-business views. I was told the other day by a family member that people who voted Remain were obsessed with money, hence why Londoners voted Remain.
Look at PB – any and all of the following are regularly described as elitist by the niche Kipper-Leaver-Corbynite-Trumper loons who frequent this site these days:
• Blairites
• Cameroons
• Students
• Old Labour moderates
• Londoners
• Soft Brexiteers
• Anyone with a big mortgage
• Liberal Democrats
• Europhiles
• Academics
• Anyone who is expert in anything
• Anyone who believes in global warming
• and... modern art fans
We are routinely treated the spectacle of SeanT – a man who enjoys a thriving weekend career as a token rightwinger recruited by Agnes B-clad hostesses to enliven their north London dinner parties – frothing about 'the elite', as if Président butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
Meanwhile, Plato, who by all accounts rattles around in a large house in Surrey, commands us to burnish our plebeian credentials by taking in daily doses of Jeremy Kyle.
Art disclosure: I rather like the bricks but have a complete blind spot on Cy Twombly. And I reserve the right to enjoy Turner, Constable and Stubbs.
http://brexitcentral.com/
PS the silver mines example is Laurion (ancient Athens) so my classical/recent distinction probably doesn't work.
Wines have to be from South Africa or NZ.
Australian wines are OK too, so long as covered by Robert Parker's "points-based system".
Of your art choices, I'm afraid Twombly is beyond the pale. Only Constable and Stubbs truly pass muster - Turner shows dangerous abstract tendencies.
Tizer, Richard.
Irn Bru is Scottish, ergo verboten, and Diet Coke is for slimmers (thin people are part of the elite).
I like this comment "Then, he transformed the Trump Foundation into something rarely seen in the world of philanthropy: a name-branded foundation whose namesake provides none of its money."
I can't think of any other Foundation in the USA that is name-branded.
For example, down the road from where I now live was a substantial camp for Italian PoWs who were loaned to local farmers for work on the fields. On the other side one of my uncles spent the latter part of 1944 and the beginning of 1945 working in a mine in Poland at the non-negotiable request of his German captors.