0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
I think a more elegant climbdown BB would have been to accept that anyone can get a calculation wrong, and that only bores with no other point to make keep banging on about it.
It matters not, what is happening now is happening in 2019, not 1949 or 1919..
https://mobile.twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554Just...beyond words."If we end up stuck in the EU for a long time because we haven't got a f**king clue what we are doing, we should throw a strop and f**k up a whole load of EU things that aren't happening."And then we'll get really, really, REALLY touchy when someone in the EU has the temerity to suggest that we're not approaching this in a grown up fashion.
CoppsThat can't be right. I thought we had no say in Europe and we were told what to do by a fascist (or is it socialist? I forget now) superstate?
I know you think you're 'trolling' Axholme Lion, but a serious question for you to ponder when you're lying in bed at night is whether the elite - those like Jacob Rees Mogg and his global hedge fund - really want that scenario to happen. And if not, what does that mean for you?
No BB. Why on earth would you read that into what I said?The answer is to look at the track records of people telling you things. To look around and see whether there is independent evidence to support what they say. Simple example. Back in 2016, Trump said he'd love to release his tax returns but he couldn't as they were under audit. He said he'd release them when the audit had finished. The tax office said that there was no reason whatsoever why they couldn't be released while under audit.Trump's lawyer said this weekend that Trump will never release his tax returns. With that information at your disposal, do you think Trump was being honest and truthful when he gave his reason for not releasing his returns and said he would love to do so in 2016?Or, if that one's too rich for your taste, how about Trump claiming that Mueller's report "totally exonerated" him, when a direct line from the report specifically said he was not exonerated?Or, back at home, what about Farage insisting in very aggressive terms in 2012 that he had nothing to do with the batshit 2010 UKIP manifesto (which demanded among other things, that taxi drivers wear uniforms and trains be painted in traditional livery colours) when he had written and signed off the Executive Summary and launched the document at a press conference. In general terms, if someone insists A is true, but there is documentary evidence to say that A is false, would you, as an intelligent person, trust that person the next time they told you something? Or would you work on the assumption that if they have a track record of lying, you'd be better served not believing them in future without good evidence?If you were stood at a window with someone and it was clearly raining outside but they insisted it wasn't, would you trust them the next time they told you what the weather was?
BS. You advising me to read up is the best laugh I've had in what's looking like a very depressing week.As it happens, I'm currently reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt. Fascinating central theme that democracy becomes endangered when there is an alliance between what she calls "The Elite and the Mob". Jacob Ress-Mogg and Tommy Robinson for example. (It was ever thus of course. The Roman Republic was undermined and eventually destroyed by elites who used the plebs as their muscle. And over the pond, billionaires are telling rednecks that they, together, can MAGA.)Anyway, back to Hannah Arendt. This quote, based on her experience of living through the horrors of the 1930s is as vitally important today as it was back then."The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist."In other words, if you want to subvert democracy, the first thing you do is destroy the concept of objective truth in people's heads. Then you can fill it with your own "truth".Trump is the poster boy for that of course. He's ideal, not because he's an ideologue deliberately pursuing a strategic plan, but because he lies as easily (and more regularly) than he shits. But there are a lot of politicians around tese days who are systematically undermining the concept of objective truth. They lie and lie and lie, then say "well EVERYONE lies. Believe what you want."The biggest battle today is not about Leave or Remain. It's not even about Right and Left. It's about the concept of objective truth. It's about the ability to determine who is being truthful and who is leading you by the nose for their own ends. Lose that battle, as Hannah Arendt well knew, and you are heading into a very dark place.That's one reason why I respect Peter Oborne and despise Nigel Farage, even though they are not that far apart in their political views. One prizes truth and honesty above everything. The other would lie to you about the time of day if it helped him achieve what he wants.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 09, 2019, 12:39:00 pmNo BB. Why on earth would you read that into what I said?The answer is to look at the track records of people telling you things. To look around and see whether there is independent evidence to support what they say. Simple example. Back in 2016, Trump said he'd love to release his tax returns but he couldn't as they were under audit. He said he'd release them when the audit had finished. The tax office said that there was no reason whatsoever why they couldn't be released while under audit.Trump's lawyer said this weekend that Trump will never release his tax returns. With that information at your disposal, do you think Trump was being honest and truthful when he gave his reason for not releasing his returns and said he would love to do so in 2016?Or, if that one's too rich for your taste, how about Trump claiming that Mueller's report "totally exonerated" him, when a direct line from the report specifically said he was not exonerated?Or, back at home, what about Farage insisting in very aggressive terms in 2012 that he had nothing to do with the batshit 2010 UKIP manifesto (which demanded among other things, that taxi drivers wear uniforms and trains be painted in traditional livery colours) when he had written and signed off the Executive Summary and launched the document at a press conference. In general terms, if someone insists A is true, but there is documentary evidence to say that A is false, would you, as an intelligent person, trust that person the next time they told you something? Or would you work on the assumption that if they have a track record of lying, you'd be better served not believing them in future without good evidence?If you were stood at a window with someone and it was clearly raining outside but they insisted it wasn't, would you trust them the next time they told you what the weather was?Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 09, 2019, 12:05:49 pmBS. You advising me to read up is the best laugh I've had in what's looking like a very depressing week.As it happens, I'm currently reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt. Fascinating central theme that democracy becomes endangered when there is an alliance between what she calls "The Elite and the Mob". Jacob Ress-Mogg and Tommy Robinson for example. (It was ever thus of course. The Roman Republic was undermined and eventually destroyed by elites who used the plebs as their muscle. And over the pond, billionaires are telling rednecks that they, together, can MAGA.)Anyway, back to Hannah Arendt. This quote, based on her experience of living through the horrors of the 1930s is as vitally important today as it was back then."The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist."In other words, if you want to subvert democracy, the first thing you do is destroy the concept of objective truth in people's heads. Then you can fill it with your own "truth".Trump is the poster boy for that of course. He's ideal, not because he's an ideologue deliberately pursuing a strategic plan, but because he lies as easily (and more regularly) than he shits. But there are a lot of politicians around tese days who are systematically undermining the concept of objective truth. They lie and lie and lie, then say "well EVERYONE lies. Believe what you want."The biggest battle today is not about Leave or Remain. It's not even about Right and Left. It's about the concept of objective truth. It's about the ability to determine who is being truthful and who is leading you by the nose for their own ends. Lose that battle, as Hannah Arendt well knew, and you are heading into a very dark place.That's one reason why I respect Peter Oborne and despise Nigel Farage, even though they are not that far apart in their political views. One prizes truth and honesty above everything. The other would lie to you about the time of day if it helped him achieve what he wants. Why did you insinuate there was a black and white difference between fascism and socialism?
Quote from: Boomstick on April 09, 2019, 01:21:58 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 09, 2019, 12:39:00 pmNo BB. Why on earth would you read that into what I said?The answer is to look at the track records of people telling you things. To look around and see whether there is independent evidence to support what they say. Simple example. Back in 2016, Trump said he'd love to release his tax returns but he couldn't as they were under audit. He said he'd release them when the audit had finished. The tax office said that there was no reason whatsoever why they couldn't be released while under audit.Trump's lawyer said this weekend that Trump will never release his tax returns. With that information at your disposal, do you think Trump was being honest and truthful when he gave his reason for not releasing his returns and said he would love to do so in 2016?Or, if that one's too rich for your taste, how about Trump claiming that Mueller's report "totally exonerated" him, when a direct line from the report specifically said he was not exonerated?Or, back at home, what about Farage insisting in very aggressive terms in 2012 that he had nothing to do with the batshit 2010 UKIP manifesto (which demanded among other things, that taxi drivers wear uniforms and trains be painted in traditional livery colours) when he had written and signed off the Executive Summary and launched the document at a press conference. In general terms, if someone insists A is true, but there is documentary evidence to say that A is false, would you, as an intelligent person, trust that person the next time they told you something? Or would you work on the assumption that if they have a track record of lying, you'd be better served not believing them in future without good evidence?If you were stood at a window with someone and it was clearly raining outside but they insisted it wasn't, would you trust them the next time they told you what the weather was?Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 09, 2019, 12:05:49 pmBS. You advising me to read up is the best laugh I've had in what's looking like a very depressing week.As it happens, I'm currently reading "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt. Fascinating central theme that democracy becomes endangered when there is an alliance between what she calls "The Elite and the Mob". Jacob Ress-Mogg and Tommy Robinson for example. (It was ever thus of course. The Roman Republic was undermined and eventually destroyed by elites who used the plebs as their muscle. And over the pond, billionaires are telling rednecks that they, together, can MAGA.)Anyway, back to Hannah Arendt. This quote, based on her experience of living through the horrors of the 1930s is as vitally important today as it was back then."The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist."In other words, if you want to subvert democracy, the first thing you do is destroy the concept of objective truth in people's heads. Then you can fill it with your own "truth".Trump is the poster boy for that of course. He's ideal, not because he's an ideologue deliberately pursuing a strategic plan, but because he lies as easily (and more regularly) than he shits. But there are a lot of politicians around tese days who are systematically undermining the concept of objective truth. They lie and lie and lie, then say "well EVERYONE lies. Believe what you want."The biggest battle today is not about Leave or Remain. It's not even about Right and Left. It's about the concept of objective truth. It's about the ability to determine who is being truthful and who is leading you by the nose for their own ends. Lose that battle, as Hannah Arendt well knew, and you are heading into a very dark place.That's one reason why I respect Peter Oborne and despise Nigel Farage, even though they are not that far apart in their political views. One prizes truth and honesty above everything. The other would lie to you about the time of day if it helped him achieve what he wants. Why did you insinuate there was a black and white difference between fascism and socialism? Out of that entire post, THAT is what you choose to respond to?
You remember, the one where you said you'd rather be cut off like North Korea and/or living in a garden shed.