[Siderite]

Can you please learn to read, Bucks? For the fourth time I was not saying today is worse than the 70s. My sole point is that saying the 70s is more catastrophic is an opinion, not fact. I am not denying the bad times of the 70s. I should not have to keep explaining this to anyone more intelligent than a 5 year old.

I am really bored of words being put into my mouth and being straw manned, with accusations that I am somehow acting badly, when it’s you doing so.

[Siderite]

I mean, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but her own MPs (and not just the backbenchers) weren’t exactly rallying in support. Plus she seemed to think it was LOTOQs. I find it baffling anyone can think this is some turning point for the lame duck PM.

[Siderite]

Doesn’t look like Tory MPs share this rekindled spirit for Truss after her performance:

As the PM finishes her exchange with Keir Starmer, telling MPs she’s a “fighter not a quitter”, one Tory backbencher turns to their neighbour and says simply “useless”. Colleague nods.

— Kate McCann (@KateEMcCann) October 19, 2022

[Siderite]

Nice of her to turn up this time.

I see she has overruled Hunt on pension uprating. If the Tories want to delude themselves that this is some fantastic performance, as if most pay attention to PMQs anyway, then be my guest.

[Siderite]

They are busy too, but I do miss the former player podcasts to fill the void in other talking points. :-(

[Siderite]

Though seeing this lot in such pitifully small number does raise a giggle. One day the world will see through the fog of false consciousness and realise these people have happened to stumble on the correct opinion. One not sullied by bourgeoisie media convincing us that despots invading a sovereign nation and butchering their public is bad, realising that it’s more complex, and that Russia’s actions can be just ignored or explained away.

[Siderite]

I see the cowardly, ‘anti-imperialist’ left are out piously making they’re out for peace again. They neglect to mention their peace means death and subjugation for Ukrainians, forced resettlements and going against their will:

Yes, the anti-war left is starting to rise! Here we are in Detroit calling for negotiations in Ukraine. We are holding teach-ins, marching, lobbying Congress. Join us. #peaceinUkraine pic.twitter.com/LYfQIf6FcJ

— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) October 17, 2022

These people were never anti-war, when they claimed to be during US involved conflict. Their prime motivation is disliking the west, and they see the west at fault everywhere, so they reflexively apologise for Russia and make out they’re being forced into conflict by the evil west. NATO aren’t even in Ukraine, their weapons are, and are they going to argue that it’s immoral to help defend an invaded nation from an invader who cares not one jot about human lives?

This also highlights the problem I have always had with pacifism. Sure, we can see that war brings horror and devastation, and we shouldn’t actively seek it without strong justification. However, sometimes we are forced into it and demanding Ukraine accepts anything for peace (as some do) means the victim losing and the aggressor gaining. What would stop Russia from trying more if Ukraine is made to seek compromise on terms it isn’t willing to commit to? Alongside some pacifists having more sympathy to the likes of Russia, this mentality is a toxic breeding ground for dictator and mass murder apologia. If peace matters above all else, then the more amendable side (Ukraine) should just give up in the eyes of some.

I am by no means saying all pacifists are like this, there are many commendable ones, but it’s a tendency I have noticed among many.

Nowadays most say they would of course be for standing up to Nazi Germany in the 30s, because that was just. Easy to say with hindsight, but given many apologise and deny crimes of current despots I am somewhat sceptical they would. Many of the time didn’t (looking at you, George Lansbury).

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

[Siderite]

64 wrote:

He’s got you again, chompety chomp

True. Though, it does seem unbefitting for a Christian to play the wum.

[Siderite]

No worthy response. Predictable.

There is a demonstrable link between oxygen and life, there is none between the Bible and the existence of logic. People were behaving logically, with the extent of their knowledge before then. Humans made fire, realised its potential for warmth and cooking before Christianity. We can see evidence of how humans have the ability to reason without it.

[Siderite]

“But this is the same mistake as the critic of air saying,”Of course air isn’t necessary to breathe,because I don’t believe in air and I can breathe just fine.””

Not it isn’t, because we can observe the effects of too little oxygen on the person. The same isn’t true for the Bible. People can survive, reason and behave perfectly fine without it. Next.

None of this bollocks has anything to do with evolution.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, TwoWrights

[Siderite]

Also, the idea that net zero policies are unpopular enough to cause serious damage to Labour chances seems wishful thinking:

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-support-majority-net-zero-policies-unless-there-is-a-personal-cost

Whether Tories could undermine this in debate, I don’t know, but it’s brave to suggest this is an automatic vote loser when polls suggest otherwise.

And, no this is not an argument that there are no problems which need to be met with net zero policies, before more words get put in my mouth.

[Siderite]

*Yet you keep trying to argue that the 70s were tough for many as if I disagree.

[Siderite]

Where did I say otherwise? Please stop putting words into my mouth and making a straw man to suit yourself.

The statement which Gurny made was that this current time is the “most catastrophic period of political leadership this country has ever seen.” This could mean many things besides just the economy. Undoubtedly the economic crises of the 70s plays a role, but equally the upheaval now has many things the 70s didn’t. PMs, chancellors and cabinet members are being upturned at a faster rate, which gives a more unstable impression of governance. Therefore, there is an argument here for the political leadership being more catastrophic than the 70s.

Regardless, it’s an opinion, not a sodding fact. Which was my point. Yet you keep trying to argue that the 70s were tough for many, or that I am arguing against there being a strong case for the 70s being worse for chaos and catastrophe, despite me clearly stating on two occasions now that I am not putting forward my own opinion on which is worse. Stop misrepresenting me for once. I don’t think my words are this unclear, and I specifically state that I am not making an argument in favour of one over the other. I repeat, it was solely over semantics, since the statement is not a fact.

[Siderite]

Sure, you can put forward a stronger case for the 70s being worse, but it isn’t unfalsifiable like actual facts, There is always an argument for the other side, even if it might be weaker and less grounded in evidence.

Again, no opinion of mine is given here. My point here is semantics.

[Siderite]

No, Bucks, saying the 70s were worse is an opinion, not a fact.

[Siderite]

And, no, that’s not actually me agreeing or disagreeing with you, before you start. Someone having an opinion that today’s leadership is worse than the 70s is just as valid as the opposite. Stating otherwise, as if it’s a fact, changes nothing.

[Siderite]

The problem is that ‘anyone who has lived through the 70s’ is that it’s an opinion, not a fact. That catch-all doesn’t work for everyone over 50.

[Siderite]

Did you see Gary Neville’s pathetic justifications for the Qatar World Cup, Bucks?

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

Having higher expectations will only lead to disappointment and misery. :-(

We’re left with finding anything to make following the Iron seem pleasurable, which seems to be anything but the football.

5 users thanked author for this post.

W4rdie, North Lincolnshire Irons, Deereyme66, alcazar, Northumbiron

[Siderite]

This song goes out to Peter Swann:

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

I think bpg wants to play the wind up to get at the irreligious on this forum and who he maybe sees as a lukewarm Christian (JI).

[Siderite]

EU membership undoubtedly led to homogenisation in trade regulations, meaning we pooled our sovereignty on this. They never controlled every aspect of our lives, like bpg seems to imply.

[Siderite]

f row crew wrote:

Daws saying some academy players will be involved doesnt sound to me as though we will be putting our strongest side out. Get ready to chalk up yet another day of embarrassment come Saturday.

Prescient.

1 user thanked author for this post.

alcazar

[Siderite]

Aye, it was definitely the EU who made the laws prior to 2016.

[Siderite]

The attacks on anyone who opposed Trussonomics as anti-growth was truly pathetic. When pointing out that erecting barriers for trade with out biggest trade partner would hinder growth, we got comments about project fear and how it doesn’t really matter, only sovereignty does.

Now the same people are upset about lack of growth, publish an unworkable plan for it, and deride anyone critical as against growth. Where were they for the past 6 or 7 years?

There is no detailed argument for their cause, just reaction to whoever opposes the Tory in power, excuses and finger pointing at anyone critical as being the true problem. It doesn’t matter if opponents were critical because of a position they now claim to hold, it’s just about owning the libs.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Heath

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

<iframe title=”Julius Fucik – Entry of the Gladiators” src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/_B0CyOAO8y0?feature=oembed&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen=”” id=”fitvid0″></iframe>

Have you been enjoying the circus recently, Deerey? :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Who else is going to vote for a Party leader if not the Party members in some shape or form Siderite?

It used to be the MPs, along with the unions for Labour. Some might say this isn’t representative, but is the current system, which has 0.1% of the population decide on the leader? Also, at least with MPs they can siphon out the incompetents through experience from working with them.

Electoral reform is something I am warming more and more to, but if we have the current system, as a parliamentary democracy, I am not keen on members having the final say.

[Siderite]

I am quite thankful there are enough MPs who are not too detached from the situation and are not willing to risk people’s livelihoods for a reckless gamble.

It is a shambles though, and this, along with Corbyn and Johnson, perfectly illustrates why electing party leaders based off member votes gives us unstable leaders. Party members are often unrepresentative of the public.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Author]

Posts