Heartofice Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: I support the team, the players and like to bond with my friends and family over Newcastle (and also Amanda with her weird Kyrten face), the Saudi regime can fuck off. I'm not gonna belabour the point, but if you are buying the kit, going to watch their matches etc.. then you kind of are supporting the Saudi regime. But that's fine.. however you want to lock it off in your head to make it feel ok is up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Heartofice said: I'm not gonna belabour the point, but if you are buying the kit, going to watch their matches etc.. then you kind of are supporting the Saudi regime. But that's fine.. however you want to lock it off in your head to make it feel ok is up to you. I'm a 47 year old man. Of course I don't buy the kit. Are you insane? My tiny contribution is really topping up the coffers of the Saudi's. Don't know how they were coping before to be honest. Edited March 22 by BigFatCoward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Heartofice said: It is a bit of a silly idea by Nike anyway, I guess the outrage is based on the idea that it's totally fine to 'playfully update' the St George's cross, but they probably wouldn't do it with other flags. Would they make the Scottish flag pink? They made the entire Scottish strip pink. There was less fuss than there has been over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 13 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: His political hero, Jeremy Corbyn This isn't really true. He was pretty critical of Corbyn during his time as labour leader, and wrote an entire book about the Corbyn leadership period that is far from hagiographic. He's currently vocally critical of Starmer and his leadership team, with good reason IMO, but that's an entirely different thing from uncritical support for Corbyn. And indeed, it's weird how Corbyn is always brought up as some kind of reflexive dismisal whenever Starmer is criticised, as if it's somehow illegitimate to criticise Starmer on the merits. As if politics is a team sport and everyone can be broken down into supporters of our guy and supporters of their guy, so any criticism of our guy has to be deflected by dunking on their guy. Quote You win the political argument, by convincing a majority. Okay, so since (for example), a supermajority of British voters support nationalisation of essential utilities, it makes sense that both major parties are currently competing with each other to be the government that introduces that. Except, of course, they aren't. And this is true of a whole host of other policies. There is a clear disconnect between what the public acutally wants and what the Westminster set is willing to do. And to be frank that goes equally for things I personally support (e.g. nationalisation) and things I don't (e.g. immigration restrictions). The idea that an election is some kind of intellectual market stall where everyone lays out their proposals on a free and fair playing field and the end result is some kind of representative microcosm of the public will is just not borne out by our actual results. Quote I mean, there's a pretty harsh reality check there. You win the political argument, by convincing a majority. Okay, and while a lot of people in the UK support a lot of the same policies as Corbyn, he did ultimately fail to convice enough of them to vote for the Labour party. That's fair enough. The thing is, if you hold a political philosophy that you believe will ultimately make for better lives for the people in the country, and you lose, the sensible response should be to change your strategy about how you you convince people, not ditch the philosophy for whatever you think will win, even if it doesn't actually make things better. And that's fundamentally what the argument is about. Labour under Starmer is looking extremely likely to win the next general election. It might even be one of the biggest landslides of all time. It's looking likely that this will be due to an utter collapse in Tory support rather than a growth in Labour support, but whatever, a win is a win. But what is winning political office for? People criticise Starmer because he gives every indication of pursuing policies that will continue the UK on its current path. Yes, Corbyn lost, and yes, Starmer will probably win. But winning only matters if you use it to improve people's lives. Starmers critics believe, rightly or wrongly, that the policies Starmer will pursue won't do that. You can agree or disagree with them on that, but can you at least accept that it's fair and legitimate to leave a political party that no longer shares your political philosophy? Why would a left-winger stay in a party that promotes (what they perceive to be ) right-wing policy? karaddin and Spockydog 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 10 minutes ago, mormont said: They made the entire Scottish strip pink. There was less fuss than there has been over this. Yeah it was hideous. They didn’t touch the flag though curiously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, Liffguard said: You can agree or disagree with them on that, but can you at least accept that it's fair and legitimate to leave a political party that no longer shares your political philosophy? Why would a left-winger stay in a party that promotes (what they perceive to be ) right-wing policy? This. I've heard so much crap, dismissing all the broken promises, dismissing all the Tory-lite policies, with "it doesn't matter what Starmer says as long as we win." 1. It fucking matters to me, and plenty of other people who have binned Starmer's Labour until it's not run by a shy fucking Tory, who is just as full of lies and bullshit as all the rest. 2. Who is the "we" in this equation? Because it certainly won't be the people. Edited March 22 by Spockydog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said: I'm a 47 year old man. I thought you were in your late 50's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Starmer just gets worse by the day. And frankly, all this talk about flags is boring as fuck. Then again, funny how none of these flag loving twats have ever condemed this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 7 hours ago, mormont said: Angela Rayner is a prominent public figure. Also she’s 44. 1. At the time of the house sale, she wasn't a prominent public figure. She was a homecare worker, presumably earning a pittance. This issue is obviously something that has been dug up with the sole intention of smearing her. 2. She's 44? Wow. She looks great. Anyway, that would have made her 29 at the time. Which was more to my point. At the time of this, she was a young care worker who had just got married. If there was any capital gains tax due, it would have been what, a couple of grand? 3. With all the genocide and corruption going on in the world right now, I don't really think that 20 minutes spent haranguing Raynor over this was what Newsnight should be putting their efforts into. Do you? Prince of the North 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 6 minutes ago, Spockydog said: 1. At the time of the house sale, she wasn't a prominent public figure. She was a homecare worker, presumably earning a pittance. This issue is obviously something that has been dug up with the sole intention of smearing her. 2. She's 44? Wow. She looks great. Anyway, that would have made her 29 at the time. Which was more to my point. At the time of this, she was a young care worker who had just got married. If there was any capital gains tax due, it would have been what, a couple of grand? 3. With all the genocide and corruption going on in the world right now, I don't really think that 20 minutes spent haranguing Raynor over this was what Newsnight should be putting their efforts into. Do you? I think that Angela Rayner is a grown woman who has handled worse in her public role and has done so much better than you or I could: and that the way you characterised her in your original post, which was clearly intended to refer to her now not when she sold the house, came off as patronising at best, sexist at worst. If that's not what was intended, fair enough, but that's how it came over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) Good grief. ETA: Tbf, I just re-read my original post. In my defence, I had just watched her interview, and Raynor herself made several references to the fact that she was just a young care worker when all this took place. The last thing I'd ever want to be, and you know this, is sexist. Patronising? It certainly wasn't intentional. Edited March 22 by Spockydog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 16 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said: How many people where involved in the manhattan project? They had a fricking town build. Having said that, i do think that was an oultier, but maybe there have been other projects like that. The Germans knew about it, or at least they knew/reasoned that the US, Britain etc would all have their own nuclear programmes and that's why they were racing hard to try to get it first themselves. Not to mention that the security of the project was having it as its own self-contained town with very high security on a separate continent five thousand miles away with everyone speaking a different language at a time of war at a point with no Internet or mobile phones. The actual idea of the nuclear bomb wasn't a secret at all, HG Wells wrote a short story about it almost fifty years earlier and tons of people had published tons of scientific literature on it for decades previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A wilding Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 And the Russians knew all about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) The idea that a small group of people couldn't ever keep a secret is poppycock. Especially, say, under threat of death by some shadowy MI-goon types. Edited March 22 by Spockydog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 So Kate has cancer. Why the fuck didn't they just say so. Prats. Anyway, wishing her a full and speedy recovery. Fuck cancer. Ser Scot A Ellison and Zorral 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Sad news. Thread title not so funny now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) Poor cow, out of the whole family she's probably the one that I'd give a pass. Edited March 22 by BigFatCoward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 18 minutes ago, Spockydog said: Why the fuck didn't they just say so. Prats. To be fair, I think wanting to keep it private is a perfectly reasonable desire and it would have been fine- a few crazies, but fine- if not for the bungled photo. After that, though, well, I can't blame her for still not wanting to say anything but it would have been way better to make it public quicker, of course. But anyway yeah, cancer sucks. Zorral, Fragile Bird and wiedzma 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Damn, this story has taken a sad turn. Very young to find out you have cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 2 minutes ago, polishgenius said: To be fair, I think wanting to keep it private is a perfectly reasonable desire and it would have been fine- a few crazies, but fine- if not for the bungled photo. After that, though, well, I can't blame her for still not wanting to say anything but it would have been way better to make it public quicker, of course. To be fair, the problem after the photo was still people being dickheads and/or fucking nuts. Not being inclined to pander to that while you’re dealing with cancer seems fairly reasonable to me. Which Tyler, DMC, Prince of the North and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts