Too many here, have very little understanding of the Cold War. Quite honestly, that is a good thing because they were born or were too young after the collapse of the CCCP, the Berlin Wall and many other symptoms of national paranoia. Unfortunately, they are also not aware of the history. May I humbly suggest some of the following authors and books to get some idea of what it was like (and could I request others of the period, from those who understand):
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbqMuvnx5MU WarGames (1983) h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOFsOA9VsBk The Day After (1983) h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDZQsVNZ3SE Special Bulletin (1983) h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2EOSgmx-MA Threads (1984) h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knSSUEdLcvg Countdown to Looking Glass (1984) h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56UeHe6dBy4 By Dawn's Early Light (1990)
The Cold War. You're all going to die. Depicted with vector graphics...
Too many here, have very little understanding of the Cold War.
I remember asking a colleague transferred to Frankfurt in the early 80s what the Germans thought of the 'Soviet threat' and the likelihood of invasion - his reply was "Its not a matter of 'if' but 'when?'"
Again we have a very biased subtle attack on leavers. The finding of this poll are interpreted and presented as leavers per se having a poor attitude towards sexual harrassment as if somehow Brexit will lead to women being groped like never before.
Sexual harrassment and Brexit are therefore conflated misleadingly-as part of the ongoing propaganda against leavers.
The reality is that older people (who just happen to be leavers in larger numbers than the rest of the population) are less concerned about sexual harrassment because when they were younger it was more socially acceptable.
Nothing to do with Brexit at all
Also plenty of us young'uns are taking the red pill.
Imagine my surprise to discover that Jeremy Corbyn has been hanging out on a secret Facebook account with Jew baiters and anti-Semites. Whoever would have thought it?
Again we have a very biased subtle attack on leavers. The finding of this poll are interpreted and presented as leavers per se having a poor attitude towards sexual harrassment as if somehow Brexit will lead to women being groped like never before.
Sexual harrassment and Brexit are therefore conflated misleadingly-as part of the ongoing propaganda against leavers.
The reality is that older people (who just happen to be leavers in larger numbers than the rest of the population) are less concerned about sexual harrassment because when they were younger it was more socially acceptable.
Nothing to do with Brexit at all
So if I understand you correctly, older people are more likely to be Leavers and are more likely to be pervs.
Oh don't stop there. The Libs have disappeared into their own arse, UKIP is appointing everybody on Earth to be leader, the SNP want independence but not a referendum and the various nationalists are crazy. The current sanest parties are Sinn Fein and the DUP...
Again we have a very biased subtle attack on leavers. The finding of this poll are interpreted and presented as leavers per se having a poor attitude towards sexual harrassment as if somehow Brexit will lead to women being groped like never before.
Sexual harrassment and Brexit are therefore conflated misleadingly-as part of the ongoing propaganda against leavers.
The reality is that older people (who just happen to be leavers in larger numbers than the rest of the population) are less concerned about sexual harrassment because when they were younger it was more socially acceptable.
Nothing to do with Brexit at all
So if I understand you correctly, older people are more likely to be Leavers and are more likely to be pervs.
I think he's saying society's norms have changed and older people haven't kept up. One day today's young will be 'left behind' too - no one has a monopoly on moral wisdom.
When i started work smoking in offices was commonplace (and I worked for an American company, much further ahead of the game than their UK counterparts) - but that changed, gradually. Overall things are much better today - perhaps that's the perspective older voters bring (and why so few of them are enamoured of Corbyn).
Imagine my surprise to discover that Jeremy Corbyn has been hanging out on a secret Facebook account with Jew baiters and anti-Semites. Whoever would have thought it?
I wonder what Labour would be saying if Mrs May had been a member of that type of group?
Imagine my surprise to discover that Jeremy Corbyn has been hanging out on a secret Facebook account with Jew baiters and anti-Semites. Whoever would have thought it?
Apparently he never saw any dodgy posts...Sounds a bit like the time he didn't see any empty seats on a train...
Imagine my surprise to discover that Jeremy Corbyn has been hanging out on a secret Facebook account with Jew baiters and anti-Semites. Whoever would have thought it?
I wonder what Labour would be saying if Mrs May had been a member of that type of group?
"Nothing to see! Move along"
Maybe not......
Can you imagine if Philip Hammond was found to have a plaque celebrating convicted terrorists...
In 2018 politics, Labour shadow chancellor doing so calls for little more than a sub-article....when you would usually expect that would be enough to end somebodies career.
I remember when going for a dinner on a yacht was enough for calls for them to have to quit.
Labour have sporadically suffered from accusations of sexism, GB certainly had issues with female colleagues, whilst Labour are to be lauded for increasing the number of MPs I do sense the party is not ready (still) to choose a female leader - can anyone explain why they have never chosen/elected one? At least the Lib Dems had the excuse they had no female MPs at one point........
Unlike Brexit, I hope an opinion we can all get behind...
Another said: 'I don't condone violence of any kind. But it'd benefit us all if the women off the Nationwide advert were left on an uninhabited island far, far away. For the rest of their lives.'
can anyone explain why they have never chosen/elected one? .............................................................................
Well from about 1994 to 2010 we had Blair/Brown.
Diane Abbott went up for leadership after Blair/Brown but lost. I actually like Diane, remember watching her doing Daily Politics a while back. Probably various reasons why she lost I'd go through them but considering what a lot of people think of her on here I don't think many complain about this one being sexism.
In 2015 the women and the guy all lost to someone on the left of them.
I get the feeling the change in membership we've had since 2015 will probably push the party more towards have a woman leader after Corbyn.
Imagine my surprise to discover that Jeremy Corbyn has been hanging out on a secret Facebook account with Jew baiters and anti-Semites. Whoever would have thought it?
Probably going to struggle to make this attack line stick with the under 50's, anyone who has used facebook and joined groups will probably realise that every crackpot post in said group doesn't represent their own views....
Doubly so if the person then actually left the group..
I'm guessing at this point the moral crusade has gone far beyond the need for actual reason though.
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
Imagine my surprise to discover that Jeremy Corbyn has been hanging out on a secret Facebook account with Jew baiters and anti-Semites. Whoever would have thought it?
Probably going to struggle to make this attack line stick with the under 50's, anyone who has used facebook and joined groups will probably realise that every crackpot post in said group doesn't represent their own views....
Doubly so if the person then actually left the group..
I'm guessing at this point the moral crusade has gone far beyond the need for actual reason though.
Poor old Jeremy - it’s just his bad luck that yet again he’s found himself in the company of Jew baiters and anti-Semites, and actively exchanging messages with them. Clearly it is entirely coincidental that he left the group immediately after becoming Labour leader.
I agree that the fact he is so comfortable in the company of racists will, of course, be overlooked and explained away by his followers, and will only have a marginal impact electorally.
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
Except the poster involved is very much the exception, not the rule, and when he does post stuff in that vein many other posters fall on him like a ton of bricks - not the case, as I understand it, on Mr Corbyn's board.
If it was all fine & dandy, why did he leave it only when appointed leader?
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
It was a private, invitation-only site, that Corbyn only left when he was elected Labour leader.
Watch this clip of Corbyn on Iranian TV channel Press TV. Listen to how he responds to a deeply anti-Semitic caller, then look at the posts on the Facebook site and examine who he has spent 40 years hanging out with:
Imagine my surprise to discover that Jeremy Corbyn has been hanging out on a secret Facebook account with Jew baiters and anti-Semites. Whoever would have thought it?
Probably going to struggle to make this attack line stick with the under 50's, anyone who has used facebook and joined groups will probably realise that every crackpot post in said group doesn't represent their own views....
Doubly so if the person then actually left the group..
I'm guessing at this point the moral crusade has gone far beyond the need for actual reason though.
Poor old Jeremy - it’s just his bad luck that yet again he’s found himself in the company of Jew baiters and anti-Semites, and actively exchanging messages with them. Clearly it is entirely coincidental that he left the group immediately after becoming Labour leader.
I agree that the fact he is so comfortable in the company of racists will, of course, be overlooked and explained away by his followers, and will only have a marginal impact electorally.
Considering, as you say, it will only have a marginal impact electorally I'm not quite sure why it is poor Jeremy. Surely the poorly off ones here are the ones who don't understand why them young'uns can't see 'the truth' and why they seem to get the crazy idea that messages not sent by them on these fancy new social media sites aren't their responsibility.
Also I'm not sure about the electoral impact, unless Corbyn actually does something anti semitic surely we reached the threshold were screaming anti semitic has ceased to have any effect.
Which is a pretty terrible situation really as it would be a bit disturbing if we did have an anti semitic leader come along as people might just think they were doing what they did with Corbyn, thanks to the cry wolf effect it would certainly be harder to make it stick.
But I guess racism isn't too serious to mess around with for political advantage.
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
Worse still, you might be thought of as an AV supporter
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
It was a private, invitation-only site, that Corbyn only left when he was elected Labour leader.
Watch this clip of Corbyn on Iranian TV channel Press TV. Listen to how he responds to a deeply anti-Semitic caller, then look at the posts on the Facebook site and examine who he has spent 40 years hanging out with:
There is a very clear pattern.
The way he stopped the call cut him off and went straight to the next call had a definite I agree with everything you say vibe.... but yes clear pattern as you say, logic is no obstacle in the great morale crusade...
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
Worse still, you might be thought of as an AV supporter
And the response from The Jewish Press (proper name):
As a result of these allegations, we will be filing a disciplinary complaint to the Labour Party against Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Lewis, Sebastian Corbyn and Jack Bond, submitting that participation in such a Facebook group is “grossly detrimental” to the Party under Chapter 2, Clause I (8) of the Party’s rule book, as well as breaching the Labour Party Social Media Policy agreed by the National Executive Committee in 2016, which requires that Party members report “hateful language” by other Labour Party members.
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
It was a private, invitation-only site, that Corbyn only left when he was elected Labour leader.
Watch this clip of Corbyn on Iranian TV channel Press TV. Listen to how he responds to a deeply anti-Semitic caller, then look at the posts on the Facebook site and examine who he has spent 40 years hanging out with:
After looking at the guys own twitter thread where he put this up it seems he got caught out by somebody on there.
The caller was referring to Israel, he cut and edited it to spread his own propaganda line. This allows those who don't care about racism but only personal political advantage to spread it.
Admittedly there may be those who are too partisan to do any research or to caught up in their own battle of right or wrong to stop and question anything negative they hear about 'the bad guy'
Thanks for the graph rcs1000. I don't understand the significance of the end of the Bretton Woods Agreement, I'll have to read up on it.
Presumably pegged exchange rates make it harder to cut pay as you can no longer do it through devaluation. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
I'm writing a little piece on the roots of trade deficits. (Hint: it's not unfair practices by foreign countries.)
The core paradox is this:
Consider two countries A and B. A has free trade agreements with China, with Germany and the EU. It has few natural resources, high wages and high costs, and a currency that has appreciated against all others near continuously for 100 years. Country B has few free trade agreements - it has them with its neighbours Canada and Mexico and a few other countries - but imposes tariffs on goods from the EU and from China. It has ample land, is the world’s largest food exporter, has relatively low costs and lots of natural resources.
Why does Country A, with the high costs, the expensive currency, the lack of natural resources, and the unlimited competition from China run a massive trade surplus, while Country B, with far greater advantages, a massive deficit.
And the answer is that trade deficits are simply the difference between your consumption and your production. And the difference between your consumption and your production is, almost by definition, your savings rate.
Countries with trade surpluses have something in common: they all have policies that encourage saving, and discourage consumption. (If you cast your mind back 25 years, the early Kenneth Clarke pursued a number of policies designed to encourage Brits to save, and was rewarded by the UK growing and running a trade surplus.)
Bretton Woods "worked" because it forced countries to maintain their exchange rates in balance, which meant that it forced governments to raise interest rates to clamp down on consumption. By contrast, the current system allows near permanent devaluation.
Thanks for the graph rcs1000. I don't understand the significance of the end of the Bretton Woods Agreement, I'll have to read up on it.
Presumably pegged exchange rates make it harder to cut pay as you can no longer do it through devaluation. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
I'm writing a little piece on the roots of trade deficits. (Hint: it's not unfair practices by foreign countries.)
The core paradox is this:
Consider two countries A and B. A has free trade agreements with China, with Germany and the EU. It has few natural resources, high wages and high costs, and a currency that has appreciated against all others near continuously for 100 years. Country B has few free trade agreements - it has them with its neighbours Canada and Mexico and a few other countries - but imposes tariffs on goods from the EU and from China. It has ample land, is the world’s largest food exporter, has relatively low costs and lots of natural resources.
Why does Country A, with the high costs, the expensive currency, the lack of natural resources, and the unlimited competition from China run a massive trade surplus, while Country B, with far greater advantages, a massive deficit.
And the answer is that trade deficits are simply the difference between your consumption and your production. And the difference between your consumption and your production is, almost by definition, your savings rate.
Countries with trade surpluses have something in common: they all have policies that encourage saving, and discourage consumption. (If you cast your mind back 25 years, the early Kenneth Clarke pursued a number of policies designed to encourage Brits to save, and was rewarded by the UK growing and running a trade surplus.)
Bretton Woods "worked" because it forced countries to maintain their exchange rates in balance, which meant that it forced governments to raise interest rates to clamp down on consumption. By contrast, the current system allows near permanent devaluation.
Thanks, as always.
On a separate note, thanks so much for prompting me to get Superforecasters off the bookshelf and read it. It was not what I was expecting it to be and, in fact, goes right to the core of much that I am working on - understanding the limits of predictability of complex systems while developing better skills for defining and framing the unknowns. That Tetlock works with Taleb, Klein and Kahnemann was a surprise.
One thing I need to email Tetlock about - his dispute with Taleb about the ubiquity of Black Swans. I side with Taleb on this one - all emergent properties are in effect Black Swans, and all complex adaptive systems present emergent properties.
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
It was a private, invitation-only site, that Corbyn only left when he was elected Labour leader.
Watch this clip of Corbyn on Iranian TV channel Press TV. Listen to how he responds to a deeply anti-Semitic caller, then look at the posts on the Facebook site and examine who he has spent 40 years hanging out with:
There is a very clear pattern.
The way he stopped the call cut him off and went straight to the next call had a definite I agree with everything you say vibe.... but yes clear pattern as you say, logic is no obstacle in the great morale crusade...
He had the opportunity and the platform to challenge the caller. He chose not to do so. Just as he chose not to challenge the views expressed on the Facebook site, just as he has never challenged the views of the many other anti-Semites and Jew baiters he has shared platforms with over the decades. I get that you have no problem with this pattern of behaviour. You'll just have to accept that I do.
Thanks for the graph rcs1000. I don't understand the significance of the end of the Bretton Woods Agreement, I'll have to read up on it.
Presumably pegged exchange rates make it harder to cut pay as you can no longer do it through devaluation. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
I'm writing a little piece on the roots of trade deficits. (Hint: it's not unfair practices by foreign countries.)
The core paradox is this:
Consider two countries A and B. A has free trade agreements with China, with Germany and the EU. It has few natural resources, high wages and high costs, and a currency that has appreciated against all others near continuously for 100 years. Country B has few free trade agreements - it has them with its neighbours Canada and Mexico and a few other countries - but imposes tariffs on goods from the EU and from China. It has ample land, is the world’s largest food exporter, has relatively low costs and lots of natural resources.
Why does Country A, with the high costs, the expensive currency, the lack of natural resources, and the unlimited competition from China run a massive trade surplus, while Country B, with far greater advantages, a massive deficit.
And the answer is that trade deficits are simply the difference between your consumption and your production. And the difference between your consumption and your production is, almost by definition, your savings rate.
Countries with trade surpluses have something in common: they all have policies that encourage saving, and discourage consumption. (If you cast your mind back 25 years, the early Kenneth Clarke pursued a number of policies designed to encourage Brits to save, and was rewarded by the UK growing and running a trade surplus.)
Bretton Woods "worked" because it forced countries to maintain their exchange rates in balance, which meant that it forced governments to raise interest rates to clamp down on consumption. By contrast, the current system allows near permanent devaluation.
PS. A book you and Mike might like if you haven't already go it is professional poker player Annie Duke's Thinking in Bets - Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
It was a private, invitation-only site, that Corbyn only left when he was elected Labour leader.
Watch this clip of Corbyn on Iranian TV channel Press TV. Listen to how he responds to a deeply anti-Semitic caller, then look at the posts on the Facebook site and examine who he has spent 40 years hanging out with:
There is a very clear pattern.
The way he stopped the call cut him off and went straight to the next call had a definite I agree with everything you say vibe.... but yes clear pattern as you say, logic is no obstacle in the great morale crusade...
He had the opportunity and the platform to challenge the caller. He chose not to do so. Just as he chose not to challenge the views expressed on the Facebook site, just as he has never challenged the views of the many other anti-Semites and Jew baiters he has shared platforms with over the decades. I get that you have no problem with this pattern of behaviour. You'll just have to accept that I do.
I noticed you skip my post where I pointed out that the guy had cut and edit this then lied about it so that people who care more about scoring political points than racism could repeat it.
Or alternatively those so wrapped up in their good vs evil battle they just repeat anything negative they hear about 'the bad guy' without actual checking it.
Either way don't you see how lying, or at best blindly repeating others propaganda without checking it can harm your own cause?
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
It was a private, invitation-only site, that Corbyn only left when he was elected Labour leader.
Watch this clip of Corbyn on Iranian TV channel Press TV. Listen to how he responds to a deeply anti-Semitic caller, then look at the posts on the Facebook site and examine who he has spent 40 years hanging out with:
There is a very clear pattern.
The way he stopped the call cut him off and went straight to the next call had a definite I agree with everything you say vibe.... but yes clear pattern as you say, logic is no obstacle in the great morale crusade...
He had the opportunity and the platform to challenge the caller. He chose not to do so. Just as he chose not to challenge the views expressed on the Facebook site, just as he has never challenged the views of the many other anti-Semites and Jew baiters he has shared platforms with over the decades. I get that you have no problem with this pattern of behaviour. You'll just have to accept that I do.
I noticed you skip my post where I pointed out that the guy had cut and edit this then lied about it so that people who care more about scoring political points than racism could repeat it.
Or alternatively those so wrapped up in their good vs evil battle they just repeat anything negative they hear about 'the bad guy' without actual checking it.
Either way don't you see how lying, or at best blindly repeating others propaganda without checking it can harm your own cause?
No, I checked it out and I found that the clip was genuine and had not been altered in any way. Corbyn chose not to challenge the clearly anti-Semitic views of the caller. I get that you have no problem with that.
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
It was a private, invitation-only site, that Corbyn only left when he was elected Labour leader.
Watch this clip of Corbyn on Iranian TV channel Press TV. Listen to how he responds to a deeply anti-Semitic caller, then look at the posts on the Facebook site and examine who he has spent 40 years hanging out with:
There is a very clear pattern.
The way he stopped the call cut him off and went straight to the next call had a definite I agree with everything you say vibe.... but yes clear pattern as you say, logic is no obstacle in the great morale crusade...
He had the opportunity and the platform to challenge the caller. He chose not to do so. Just as he chose not to challenge the views expressed on the Facebook site, just as he has never challenged the views of the many other anti-Semites and Jew baiters he has shared platforms with over the decades. I get that you have no problem with this pattern of behaviour. You'll just have to accept that I do.
I noticed you skip my post where I pointed out that the guy had cut and edit this then lied about it so that people who care more about scoring political points than racism could repeat it.
Or alternatively those so wrapped up in their good vs evil battle they just repeat anything negative they hear about 'the bad guy' without actual checking it.
Either way don't you see how lying, or at best blindly repeating others propaganda without checking it can harm your own cause?
No, I checked it out and I found that the clip was genuine and had not been altered in any way. Corbyn chose not to challenge the clearly anti-Semitic views of the caller. I get that you have no problem with that.
I didn't say it wasn't genuine, I said it was cut and edit, you'll notice it is only 29 seconds long. Bit of a strange show that begins half way through a telephone conversation don't you think?
The longer version* makes clear the caller is talking about Israel. You have to question the intentions of those who would lie about anti semitism in order to further their own political agenda.
Do you ever worry that you are furthering the cause of real anti semites or is that a price worth paying for your own political ends?
*Or just something that includes the whole call in question.
Worth noting, of course, that all of us could be tarred with the "Xxx hangs out on board where holocaust denying posts like [insert Crosby post here] proliferate. Xxx must be an anti-semite."
It was a private, invitation-only site, that Corbyn only left when he was elected Labour leader.
Watch this clip of Corbyn on Iranian TV channel Press TV. Listen to how he responds to a deeply anti-Semitic caller, then look at the posts on the Facebook site and examine who he has spent 40 years hanging out with:
There is a very clear pattern.
The way he stopped the call cut him off and went straight to the next call had a definite I agree with everything you say vibe.... but yes clear pattern as you say, logic is no obstacle in the great morale crusade...
He I do.
I noticed you skip my post where I pointed out that the guy had cut and edit this then lied about it so that people who care more about scoring political points than racism could repeat it.
Or alternatively those so wrapped up in their good vs evil battle they just repeat anything negative they hear about 'the bad guy' without actual checking it.
Either way don't you see how lying, or at best blindly repeating others propaganda without checking it can harm your own cause?
No, I checked it out and I found that the clip was genuine and had not been altered in any way. Corbyn chose not to challenge the clearly anti-Semitic views of the caller. I get that you have no problem with that.
I didn't say it wasn't genuine, I said it was cut and edit, you'll notice it is only 29 seconds long. Bit of a strange show that begins half way through a telephone conversation don't you think?
The longer version* makes clear the caller is talking about Israel. You have to question the intentions of those who would lie about anti semitism in order to further their own political agenda.
Do you ever worry that you are furthering the cause of real anti semites or is that a price worth paying for your own political ends?
*Or just something that includes the whole call in question.
If you believe calling the Israelis a disease and demanding they are kicked out of the Middle East is not anti-Semitic, so be it. We will have to agree to disagree.
So despite the fact the call wasn't about that you still stuck with the lie originally and the edited to make it look that way clip making out he said Jewish rather than Israeli?
Does it occur to this is exactly what I meant when I said lying just hurts your own side?
I have had people like you throw hundreds of stories at me they were either too lazy/ignorant/stupid to check out themselves or too much into their own good and evil battle to care that they were spreading propaganda.
The result is I now end up checking out stories like this when people like you produce them, time and time again I find out it is either a complete lie or at best blatant propaganda make to look like something it isn't.
If you want to know why there are so many people who think that Jeremy can do no wrong look in the mirror, it is people like you so full of themselves and the idea that the ends justifies the means spreading propaganda that people keep rumbling. It gets to a certain point where you start mistrusting the negative stuff before you can double check it yourself.
But hey If you can't see any danger in blatantly lying whilst making accusations of anti semitism for your own political ends I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
So despite the fact the call wasn't about that you still stuck with the lie originally and the edited to make it look that way clip making out he said Jewish rather than Israeli?
Does it occur to this is exactly what I meant when I said lying just hurts your own side?
I have had people like you throw hundreds of stories at me they were either too lazy/ignorant/stupid to check out themselves or too much into their own good and evil battle to care that they were spreading propaganda.
The result is I now end up checking out stories like this when people like you produce them, time and time again I find out it is either a complete lie or at best blatant propaganda make to look like something it isn't.
If you want to know why there are so many people who think that Jeremy can do no wrong look in the mirror, it is people like you so full of themselves and the idea that the ends justifies the means spreading propaganda that people keep rumbling. It gets to a certain point where you start mistrusting the negative stuff before you can double check it yourself.
But hey If you can't see any danger in blatantly lying whilst making accusations of anti semitism for your own political ends I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
As I say, I understand you are happy overlook the fact that Jeremy has spent 40 years hanging out with Jew baiters and anti-Semites without ever challenging their views. This is your choice and attacking me doesn’t change that.
I didn't specify you (at least in the last post) but said a lie, as in the lie in the tweet. Which you have now admitted yourself that the caller was talking about Israel.
Or are you going back to the original lie in the tweet now?
Comments
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbqMuvnx5MU WarGames (1983)
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOFsOA9VsBk The Day After (1983)
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDZQsVNZ3SE Special Bulletin (1983)
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2EOSgmx-MA Threads (1984)
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knSSUEdLcvg Countdown to Looking Glass (1984)
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56UeHe6dBy4 By Dawn's Early Light (1990)
The Cold War. You're all going to die. Depicted with vector graphics...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-sudden-promotion-sparks-an-uproar-in-europe-1520540968
https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/971904221380427776
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/971915678134366208?s=21
https://twitter.com/Henry_Belot/status/971855016297312256
When i started work smoking in offices was commonplace (and I worked for an American company, much further ahead of the game than their UK counterparts) - but that changed, gradually. Overall things are much better today - perhaps that's the perspective older voters bring (and why so few of them are enamoured of Corbyn).
"Nothing to see! Move along"
Maybe not......
In 2018 politics, Labour shadow chancellor doing so calls for little more than a sub-article....when you would usually expect that would be enough to end somebodies career.
I remember when going for a dinner on a yacht was enough for calls for them to have to quit.
Another said: 'I don't condone violence of any kind. But it'd benefit us all if the women off the Nationwide advert were left on an uninhabited island far, far away. For the rest of their lives.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5478565/Nationwide-call-police-death-threats-singing-sisters.html
.............................................................................
Well from about 1994 to 2010 we had Blair/Brown.
Diane Abbott went up for leadership after Blair/Brown but lost. I actually like Diane, remember watching her doing Daily Politics a while back. Probably various reasons why she lost I'd go through them but considering what a lot of people think of her on here I don't think many complain about this one being sexism.
In 2015 the women and the guy all lost to someone on the left of them.
I get the feeling the change in membership we've had since 2015 will probably push the party more towards have a woman leader after Corbyn.
Independent GAIN from Conservative. No other Ind(s) (-35.6) and LDem (-29.1)
Wollaton West (Nottingham) result: LAB: 48.8% (+10.1) CON: 43.4% (+8.2) LDEM: 5.3% (-1.8) GRN: 1.6% (-8.1) BPEP: 0.9% (+0.9)
Labour GAIN from Conservative.
Farnworth (Bolton) result: FAKF: 47.5% (+47.5) LAB: 38.2% (-10.2) UKIP: 6.7% (-29.7) CON: 6.0% (-2.6) LDEM: 0.9% (-2.1) GRN: 0.7% (-2.8)
Farnworth & Kearsley First GAIN Farnworth (Bolton) from Labour
Doubly so if the person then actually left the group..
I'm guessing at this point the moral crusade has gone far beyond the need for actual reason though.
I agree that the fact he is so comfortable in the company of racists will, of course, be overlooked and explained away by his followers, and will only have a marginal impact electorally.
If it was all fine & dandy, why did he leave it only when appointed leader?
Watch this clip of Corbyn on Iranian TV channel Press TV. Listen to how he responds to a deeply anti-Semitic caller, then look at the posts on the Facebook site and examine who he has spent 40 years hanging out with:
https://twitter.com/alastairjt/status/948611939537649664?lang=en
There is a very clear pattern.
Also I'm not sure about the electoral impact, unless Corbyn actually does something anti semitic surely we reached the threshold were screaming anti semitic has ceased to have any effect.
Which is a pretty terrible situation really as it would be a bit disturbing if we did have an anti semitic leader come along as people might just think they were doing what they did with Corbyn, thanks to the cry wolf effect it would certainly be harder to make it stick.
But I guess racism isn't too serious to mess around with for political advantage.
http://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/180305_livereport_part2_FINAL.pdf
And the response from The Jewish Press (proper name):
As a result of these allegations, we will be filing a disciplinary complaint to the Labour Party against Jeremy Corbyn, Clive Lewis, Sebastian Corbyn and Jack Bond, submitting that participation in such a Facebook group is “grossly detrimental” to the Party under Chapter 2, Clause I (8) of the Party’s rule book, as well as breaching the Labour Party Social Media Policy agreed by the National Executive Committee in 2016, which requires that Party members report “hateful language” by other Labour Party members.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/global/uk/report-british-labour-partys-jeremy-corbyn-seen-in-facebook-group-rife-with-anti-semitism/2018/03/07/
'Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas'
The caller was referring to Israel, he cut and edited it to spread his own propaganda line. This allows those who don't care about racism but only personal political advantage to spread it.
Admittedly there may be those who are too partisan to do any research or to caught up in their own battle of right or wrong to stop and question anything negative they hear about 'the bad guy'
The core paradox is this:
Consider two countries A and B. A has free trade agreements with China, with Germany and the EU. It has few natural resources, high wages and high costs, and a currency that has appreciated against all others near continuously for 100 years. Country B has few free trade agreements - it has them with its neighbours Canada and Mexico and a few other countries - but imposes tariffs on goods from the EU and from China. It has ample land, is the world’s largest food exporter, has relatively low costs and lots of natural resources.
Why does Country A, with the high costs, the expensive currency, the lack of natural resources, and the unlimited competition from China run a massive trade surplus, while Country B, with far greater advantages, a massive deficit.
And the answer is that trade deficits are simply the difference between your consumption and your production. And the difference between your consumption and your production is, almost by definition, your savings rate.
Countries with trade surpluses have something in common: they all have policies that encourage saving, and discourage consumption. (If you cast your mind back 25 years, the early Kenneth Clarke pursued a number of policies designed to encourage Brits to save, and was rewarded by the UK growing and running a trade surplus.)
Bretton Woods "worked" because it forced countries to maintain their exchange rates in balance, which meant that it forced governments to raise interest rates to clamp down on consumption. By contrast, the current system allows near permanent devaluation.
On a separate note, thanks so much for prompting me to get Superforecasters off the bookshelf and read it. It was not what I was expecting it to be and, in fact, goes right to the core of much that I am working on - understanding the limits of predictability of complex systems while developing better skills for defining and framing the unknowns. That Tetlock works with Taleb, Klein and Kahnemann was a surprise.
One thing I need to email Tetlock about - his dispute with Taleb about the ubiquity of Black Swans. I side with Taleb on this one - all emergent properties are in effect Black Swans, and all complex adaptive systems present emergent properties.
PS. A book you and Mike might like if you haven't already go it is professional poker player Annie Duke's Thinking in Bets - Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts
Or alternatively those so wrapped up in their good vs evil battle they just repeat anything negative they hear about 'the bad guy' without actual checking it.
Either way don't you see how lying, or at best blindly repeating others propaganda without checking it can harm your own cause?
The longer version* makes clear the caller is talking about Israel. You have to question the intentions of those who would lie about anti semitism in order to further their own political agenda.
Do you ever worry that you are furthering the cause of real anti semites or is that a price worth paying for your own political ends?
*Or just something that includes the whole call in question.
Does it occur to this is exactly what I meant when I said lying just hurts your own side?
I have had people like you throw hundreds of stories at me they were either too lazy/ignorant/stupid to check out themselves or too much into their own good and evil battle to care that they were spreading propaganda.
The result is I now end up checking out stories like this when people like you produce them, time and time again I find out it is either a complete lie or at best blatant propaganda make to look like something it isn't.
If you want to know why there are so many people who think that Jeremy can do no wrong look in the mirror, it is people like you so full of themselves and the idea that the ends justifies the means spreading propaganda that people keep rumbling. It gets to a certain point where you start mistrusting the negative stuff before you can double check it yourself.
But hey If you can't see any danger in blatantly lying whilst making accusations of anti semitism for your own political ends I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I'm not talking just about myself here, credits already pretty much gone sorry.
Or are you going back to the original lie in the tweet now?