Gently Back Into the Water 823


I had excellent news from my cardiologist yesterday.  Ready to think about other things now.  I am horrified by the continuing stream of ” royal” baby hype on television.  Truly pathetic – is this 1313 or 2013?  Who buys into this nonsense?

I thought the Lib Dem take on Trident missiles was hilarious.  This small group of islands does apparently need to retain the ability to wipe out one third of the urban population of humankind, as a defence against something undefined – possibly people we invade getting too annoyed about it – and  in order to increase our “influence” in the World.  As we plainly have less influence than the Germans, who don’t feel this need for the power of obliteration, I do not quite see how this works.  Nor do I see Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons, as very influential.  Nor do I quite understand how our influence can be increased by possessing something  under effective American control.  But there you are.

Anyway, the Lib Dems have come to the intellectually scintillating conclusion that we do need this world shattering power, but we don’t need it on Wednesday or Thursday afternoons or on Saturday mornings, which will be cheaper.  Brilliant, and plainly does not dodge any big ethical or practical questions at all.

 

 

 

 


823 thoughts on “Gently Back Into the Water

1 26 27 28
  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Doug Scorgie

    “I don’t think you’ve ever “won” a discussion here have you?

    Also you have yet to tell us who has been lying to try and “win” a discussion and what the lies are.”
    _________________-

    1/. I’d say 95% of them. The proof being that my interlocutors either suddenly fall silent, or deviate from the subject, or resort to vulgar abuse.

    2/. You would be rather high on any lying/dishonesty list. And you’re rather brazen with it.

  • doug scorgie

    Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)
    24 Jul, 2013 – 9:31 pm

    “ Anyway, someone seems to have changed his mind, because in your first post on the subject (23 July at 19h59) you quote Iranian Press TV as saying that Saudi Arabia offers $ 2 billions in “oil and gas products” and Kuwait offers $ 4 billions “to help the crashing economy back on its feet”.

    I haven’t changed my mind Habbabkuk; I was quoting Press TV which was reporting on announcements made by these wonderful dictatorships.

    They are supplying “aid” to a country without a civilian government ie a military dictatorship. It is the military junta that will control any foreign aid.

    Surely you don’t believe that the “aid” (whether cash or oil) is a gift.

    Also:
    @Doug Scorgie
    24 Jul, 2013 – 12:39 pm
    I said to you:

    My point was rhetorical Habbabkuk and a cynical dismissal of those states claiming the “aid” is for the economic benefit of the people of Egypt.

    I don’t believe dictatorships act for the benefit of others but perhaps you do; being that your beloved Israel prefers a dictatorship in Egypt so that they and the US can control it for their own ends; not for the benefit of Egyptian people.

  • glenn_uk

    Macky: Sorry if you feel stung by that one, but it was pretty obvious. You choose to present unsupported, smug little assertions, making unpleasant mass generalisations about the intelligence of posters. Sounds as if it’s clever (to some!), but actually isn’t – a point you illustrated rather well.

    I hadn’t “exposed a great big nasty hypocrisy” on your part, but was rather expressing my surprise that you wanted to publicly define yourself in such an unflattering manner!

    But don’t let it spoil your holiday. Pip pip, old boy! 😉

  • Macky

    “It shows, for example, how stupid you are : you post a comment talking entirely about people and end it by saying that small minds talk about people.”

    So there we have it, in the contra-reality & surreal world of Habby-Clown & Glen_uk, a comment posted in order to highlight the petty-mindedness of people who post just in order to snark another Poster, and posting just in order to snark another Poster, is one and the same thing !!

    “You choose to present unsupported, smug little assertions, making unpleasant mass generalisations about the intelligence of posters. Sounds as if it’s clever (to some!), but actually isn’t – a point you illustrated rather well.”

    “unsupported” only if you have never read most of the posts aimed at Mary emanating from the likes of Habby-Clown/Villager/”Sweet” Dreoilin/Jemand; as to “smug little assertions” & “unpleasant mass generalisations about the intelligence of posters”, yes they may indeed sound clever to some, but only to those with the capacity for honesty & perceptive intelligence, a point inadvertently illustrated by your good self !

    Sorry guys, but logic doesn’t work like that, no wonder you both seem to have problems with rational debate, and undertanding real World issues.

  • glenn_uk

    Macky, you just made a fool of yourself. Stop wriggling around, man-up, and admit it.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Doug Scorgie

    “I haven’t changed my mind Habbabkuk; I was quoting Press TV which was reporting on announcements made by these wonderful dictatorships.”
    ______________

    The fish took the bait :). Should we therefore conclude that you know better than your source – ie, Press TV – the uses to which the aid will be put? Congratulations on your superioir xources of information, which I of course shan’t ask you to reveal.
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    “It is the military junta that will control any foreign aid.”
    _____________

    Obviously, because the military junta is the govt at present. What does that say, though, about the use of the money?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Surely you don’t believe that the “aid” (whether cash or oil) is a gift.”
    ___________

    Well, the source – ie Press TV – which you brought to our attention in your original post talks, in addition to oil and gas products, about cash deposits (which may be loans) and “grants”. In matters of international aid, grants are non-repayable and are therefore gifts.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Finally :

    “Also:
    @Doug Scorgie
    24 Jul, 2013 – 12:39 pm
    I said to you:

    My point was rhetorical Habbabkuk…”
    ____________

    Would you not agree that rational discussion on this blog would be better served by making fewer rhetorical and more substantive points? Just a thought, of course.

    ****************

    Please don’t bother to reply, because I should not like this exchange to turn into an exercise in bickering. Thanks.

  • Macky

    “Macky, you just made a fool of yourself. Stop wriggling around, man-up, and admit it.”

    Ok, if you say so it must be true, even if it’s only true in your little surreal world !

    (funny how the habby-clown also often uses the term to “man-up” when he has also run out of real arguments to make !)

  • glenn_uk

    Hello Jon,

    Your direct reply is very much appreciated, thank you. You’re doing a sterling job at keeping it usable, and are under no obligations to answer to the likes of me.

    *

    Desperate though it may be, you are not responsible for the actions of others. If someone is bullied off the board, it’s reprehensible. But how seriously they take that to be in their real, day-to-say lives, is not your responsibility.

    To illustrate: If a help-line attracts fragile, desperate people, maybe they can be be aided through their distress. Very sadly, maybe not successfully all the time.

    But a hard-core political blog is not a help-line, and not the place to show or expect special consideration for this sort of delicate sensibility. CM’s site is clearly not the place for someone (a) unable to deal with harsh realities, and (b) unable to deal with opposing views, often put strongly and quite unkindly.

    Therefore, interacting on CM’s blog is not wise if one has an inability to cope with these demands. And if they cannot, that is not your fault, your problem, or indeed your place to shield them from the burden of engaging here.

    *

    True, I’ve been out of the picture for a good couple of months, and I may have overgeneralised. Hopefully, it doesn’t look that my entire whinge is saying, “you suck” – I’ve stated a number of times that the spam, drunks, etc. would have entirely overrun the blog without your laudable efforts. It doesn’t appear that you’re entirely partisan either.

    About Crypto’s comment – if a post is so out of line that it’s going to attract libel, or other trouble for the blog host, that might be a reason to remove the comment. If (say) it called on people to commit criminal acts, or betrayed access information to someone’s systems, sure – that’s out of line. Airing the view that some mumbo-jumbo delusion is insane, sexist, or indeed “a seedy sick cult” should not cause the same reaction. It’s just a view, and he’s entitled to make it. I feel entitled to read it. I do not need to be protected from it, and anyone who does should not be reading blog comments here.

    Do you think America’s First Amendment right to free speech is a good thing, and if not why not? Applied here, it wouldn’t mean that this blog is obliged to carry someone else’s views, of course. But if free speech as a principle is the order of the day (which I believe CM has stated in the past), it is fundamentally at odds with the line-item editing that has taken place here.

    You say CM is disinclined to prove what you have suggested – so “we” are on “our” own. That would be the Royal “We”, I take it? Because it’s not “we”, it’s your good self only. It also looks like you’re saying we must either have your moderation/ censorship in its entirety, or have no protection from trolls whatsoever.

    Memory being what it is, people seem to think that there was a great golden age – even here – not long back, before this or that came along and spoiled everything. Truth of the matter is there always have been awkward elements. But at least we didn’t have censorship. For all the gains from your considerable efforts, IMHO that censorship has rather taken us away from the principles of free speech I believe ought to operate here.

    Thanks.

  • doug scorgie

    Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)
    25 Jul, 2013 – 5:09 pm

    “Would you not agree that rational discussion on this blog would be better served by making fewer rhetorical and more substantive points?”

    Habbabkuk, I don’t think you know what rhetorical means nor do I believe that you have made many (if any) substantive points when you post here.

    A rational discussion with you Habbabkuk is an impossibility; not because you are stupid but because, as with all Zionist supporters, a rational discussion is the last thing you want.

    When putting points of view forward your opinions must be supported; you should produce your evidence and explain why this evidence supports your point of view; if used, you should always quote sources and give references.

    End of lesson.

  • Jemand - Censorship Improves History

    Glenn_uk, you made a cogent and convincing argument that was rudely undermined by the snide comment that immediately followed. Pity.

    @Jon 

    Have you thought of a more simple policy in which only the latest post by Craig is heavily moderated while it is current? Or only the first N pages?

  • john king

    your spam filter sums are really hard, what happens if we get it wrong? my mums expecting me home for my tea 🙁

1 26 27 28

Comments are closed.