"TimW" wrote in message news

On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news

On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/

TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is
taking a suicidal stance.

In article . com,
lid writes
On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land syndrome.
They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of heading for
economic disaster.


Think about it..

they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some and
employ more. ;-)
Think more about it. Unemployment levels are higher in France which has
mire holidays, Think more about i. More holidays means lower
productivity means less profit means cost cutting means higher
unemployment like France.
--
bert

In article , michael
adams writes

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2017-04-23, michael adams wrote:

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
news I also admire politicians who have genuine principles, for standing
up for what they believe in, and not bowing down to party and career
progression. There aren't anywhere near enough of them. People like
Corbyn, Blair, Tony Benn, Hilary Benn, Heseltine, Tebbit, Thatcher,
etc. That doesn't mean I support their views - I don't think anyone
could support all the above, but I respect them for being genuine
to their own beliefs.

Unfortunately, I can't say that of anywhere near enough politicians.


Indeed. Greater love hath no politician than that he'd willingly
lay down the lives of millions of other people in pursuit his
principles.

I mean. Maximillian Robespierre, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot.


Now let's see.

Maximillin Robespierre, Reign of Terror 1793,1794 estimated 40,000 killed

Joseph Stalin estimates of those executed, worked or starved to death
20-60 million

Mao Tse Tung Great Leap Forward estimated 45 million dead

Pol Pot, Up to 25% of the Cambodian poulation killed between 1 and 3
million people.


Meanwhile, somewhere in Southern England (one assumes)


You omitted "... all the while stealing their money and spending it on things
they neither need nor want."


A retired Bankster has a little moanette about income tax.

Cry Me a River.

Taxpayer support for UK banks: FAQs

a.. Provision of cash in the form of loans to the Financial Services
Compensation
Scheme and insolvent
b.. banks to support deposits, and the purchase of share capital in
Royal Bank of
Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group.
Peak support (£bn)
Guarantee commitments 1,029
Cash outlay 133
Total peak support 1,162
https://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/ta...uk-banks-faqs/


michael adams
And how much of that has now been recovered?
Once you're dead you are dead.
--
bert

In article , critcher
writes
On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land
syndrome. They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of
heading for economic disaster.
Very true, harry. After two terms of Tory mismanagement, the economy
certainly needs sorting. And even more so when we actually quit the EU.
Which again happened because of Tory mismanagement. So I take it you will
not be voting Tory?

bit more than mismanagement, never seen so many chief rats jump ship in
all my life, **** me they have been in charge for 6 years, 6 years of
no pay rises
The public sector are still considerably ahead of the private sector who
actually generate the wealth to pay them.
6 years of complete and utter shafting of the general public but still
the public want them.
We are till spending over £60bn more than we earn.
Reminds me of public schools and the matron smacking your arse, God but
they enjoy it.
Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now.
You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up
that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The
UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts
in the EU,
--
bert

In article , Roger Hayter
writes
dennis@home wrote:

On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land syndrome.
They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of heading for
economic disaster.


Think about it..

they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some and
employ more. ;-)

Part time is better than zero hours contracts.


Not necessarily.
--
bert

In article . com,
lid writes
On 23/04/2017 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land syndrome.
They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of heading for
economic disaster.


Think about it..

they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some and
employ more. ;-)
Part time is better than zero hours contracts.


Not all zero hour contracts are bad.
Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc.
Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad"
--
bert

In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
"Brian Gaff" writes:
I don't think a few bank holidays will make much odds.

Around a 1.5% drop in productivity, which is small compared with
how far we're behind other EU countries anyway.

But in the wrong direction
The problem really is
that as there has been no in living memory socialist government that has
worked, most people do not understand how its supposed to work. The worry
is, of course that neither does he. Utopia is wonderful but hard to achieve
in a world run by capitalists.


--
bert

On Monday, 24 April 2017 17:28:53 UTC+1, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news

On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/

TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is
taking a suicidal stance.

MAD theory probably doesn't work for crazed muslims.
All you need is a shipping container to deliver one.

On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote:
In article , critcher
writes
On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:

Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now.
You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up
that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The
UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts
in the EU,

Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the
money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the
country is still in hock.

On 23/04/2017 18:33, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 23 April 2017 11:12:42 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land
syndrome. They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of
heading for economic disaster.

Very true, harry. After two terms of Tory mismanagement, the economy
certainly needs sorting. And even more so when we actually quit the EU.
Which again happened because of Tory mismanagement. So I take it you will
not be voting Tory?

The economy was ****ed by Brown Bliar.
(Forgotten so soon?)
It will take decades to fix.
If it's not fixed soon there will be economic disaster.

Decades !!! America was similarly hit by bankers taking their swag home,
but I don't think they are struggling like we are supposed to be.
Take decades to fix my arse.

On 23/04/2017 18:35, harry wrote:
--- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land syndrome.
They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of heading for
economic disaster.

Socialism always fails.
No exceptions.


And toryism is the answer, is it ****.

On 24/04/2017 18:36, harry wrote:


Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is
taking a suicidal stance.

MAD theory probably doesn't work for crazed muslims.
All you need is a shipping container to deliver one.

"crazed muslims " don't need a container for anything, they have the
media and ****wits like you to spread the word.

On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote:


they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some and
employ more. ;-)
Part time is better than zero hours contracts.


Not all zero hour contracts are bad.
Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc.
Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad"

No one is saying they are inherently bad, but they are only good if you
want them.
There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15
hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your
right to negotiate that with your employer.

On 23/04/2017 18:33, harry wrote:

The economy was ****ed by Brown Bliar.
(Forgotten so soon?)
It will take decades to fix.
If it's not fixed soon there will be economic disaster.

do not be concerned,the disaster is upon us.

"critcher" wrote in message news

On 23/04/2017 18:33, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 23 April 2017 11:12:42 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land
syndrome. They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of
heading for economic disaster.

Very true, harry. After two terms of Tory mismanagement, the economy
certainly needs sorting. And even more so when we actually quit the EU.
Which again happened because of Tory mismanagement. So I take it you
will
not be voting Tory?

The economy was ****ed by Brown Bliar.
(Forgotten so soon?)
It will take decades to fix. If it's not fixed soon there will be
economic disaster.

Decades !!! America was similarly hit by bankers taking their swag home,
but I don't think they are struggling like we are supposed to be.
Take decades to fix my arse.

Hardly surprising your arse needs fixing, your head's been up there for
ages.

"critcher" wrote in message news

On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote:
In article , critcher
writes
On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:

Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now.
You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up that
was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time. The UK
economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its counterparts in
the EU,

Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the
money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the
country is still in hock.

What's up? Cut your benefits?

"critcher" wrote in message news

On 23/04/2017 18:35, harry wrote:
--- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land syndrome.
They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of heading for
economic disaster.

Socialism always fails.
No exceptions.


And toryism is the answer, is it ****.

It is. Get over it.

"critcher" wrote in message news

On 24/04/2017 18:36, harry wrote:


Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent
is
taking a suicidal stance.

MAD theory probably doesn't work for crazed muslims.
All you need is a shipping container to deliver one.

"crazed muslims " don't need a container for anything, they have the media
and ****wits like you to spread the word.

Does your carer know you're off your meds again?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 24 April 2017 17:28:53 UTC+1, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news

On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic
that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/

TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent is
taking a suicidal stance.

MAD theory probably doesn't work for crazed muslims.

Corse it does. There hasnt been a war between
Pakistan and India since they both got nukes.

"critcher" wrote in message
news
On 23/04/2017 18:33, harry wrote:

The economy was ****ed by Brown Bliar.
(Forgotten so soon?)
It will take decades to fix.
If it's not fixed soon there will be economic disaster.

do not be concerned,the disaster is upon us.

Must be why so many foreigners keep trying to pour into the country.

On 4/23/2017 8:09 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/04/2017 13:53, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I also admire politicians who have genuine principles, for standing
up for what they believe in, and not bowing down to party and career
progression. There aren't anywhere near enough of them. People like
Corbyn, Blair, Tony Benn, Hilary Benn, Heseltine, Tebbit, Thatcher,
etc. That doesn't mean I support their views - I don't think anyone
could support all the above, but I respect them for being genuine
to their own beliefs.

Not sure how Blair got into that list... He always seemed incapable of
having an opinion until a focus group told him which one to have!


The Blair principle was that, unless you can actually get an elected
government, you really can't make significant changes to policy. And it
has to be said that the Blair governments put much-needed money into the
NHS.

That's a sound principle. Shame the Tories are *so* much better at it.

And are we really so well off with shoot-from-the hip and highly
opinionated leaders like Boris and Trump? Or Corbyn, for that matter.

On 24/04/2017 20:40, Rod Speed wrote:


Must be why so many foreigners keep trying to pour into the country.

Only because the EU countries they come from are in worst ****

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

critcher wrote:
On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote:
In article , critcher
writes
On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:

Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now.
You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up
that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time.
The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its
counterparts in the EU,

Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the
money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the
country is still in hock.

You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity, that's
why the borrowing is so high.

On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote:
On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote:


they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some
and
employ more. ;-)
Part time is better than zero hours contracts.


Not all zero hour contracts are bad.
Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc.
Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad"

No one is saying they are inherently bad, but they are only good if you
want them.

There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15
hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your
right to negotiate that with your employer.

And what if the employer can't offer 15 hours a week? The choice may be
10 hours/week or none. You seem to be suggesting that legislating so
that "none" is the only option on offer. Who benefits from that?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 24/04/2017 20:40, Rod Speed wrote:


Must be why so many foreigners keep trying to pour into the country.

Only because the EU countries they come from are in worst ****

Its isnt just the EU countrys they keep trying to pour in from.

On 24/04/17 18:07, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 23/04/2017 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land
syndrome.
They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of heading for
economic disaster.


Think about it..

they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some and
employ more. ;-)
Part time is better than zero hours contracts.


Not all zero hour contracts are bad.
Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc.
Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad"

Zero hours contracts wouldn't be there if minimum waqes weren't so high.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 24/04/17 19:25, critcher wrote:
On 23/04/2017 18:35, harry wrote:
--- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land syndrome.
They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of heading for
economic disaster.

Socialism always fails.
No exceptions.


And toryism is the answer, is it ****.

I never said it was.

However using the free market itself to regulate prices, and sensible
laissez faire approaches to capitalism with only minimal regulation to
prevent the worst excesses is about as good as it gets.

Its called Libertarian conservatism.

No party espouses it.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 24/04/17 19:33, critcher wrote:
On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote:


they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some
and
employ more. ;-)
Part time is better than zero hours contracts.


Not all zero hour contracts are bad.
Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc.
Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad"

No one is saying they are inherently bad, but they are only good if you
want them.
There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15
hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your
right to negotiate that with your employer.

ROFLMAO.



--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news

On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/

TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent
is taking a suicidal stance.


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having
Nuclear Weapons? I think none.
In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better
result than the destruction of some of them?
TW

"TimW" wrote in message
news
On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news

On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/

TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent
is taking a suicidal stance.


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having
Nuclear Weapons? I think none.

In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race

Not even possible.

a better result than the destruction of some of them?

That didnt even happen with the Japs.

On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote:
On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news

On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/

TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent
is taking a suicidal stance.


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having
Nuclear Weapons? I think none.
In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better
result than the destruction of some of them?
TW

And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long
time. Has that contributed to peace? Have those nukes meant that the US
hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? What about GB, we have
had one shoddy war after another? What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is
North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? I don't think so.

TW

On 25/04/17 10:46, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote:
On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic
that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/

TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent
is taking a suicidal stance.


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having
Nuclear Weapons? I think none.
In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better
result than the destruction of some of them?
TW

And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long
time. Has that contributed to peace? Have those nukes meant that the US
hasn't needed to get involved in foreign wars? What about GB, we have
had one shoddy war after another? What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is
North Korea's Nuclear program keeping the country safe? I don't think so.


Oh dear.

There speaks a true snowflake.

Have you any idea what 50 million dead looks like?

Wars have been local affairs since nuclear weapons came along.

And they cant be uninvented.

There is absolutely no point in dreaming about a world without nuclear
weapons. The world has the know how, and as Kim Jong Mc********face has
demonstrated, if a nation wants one enough it can get one.
Nuke are here to stay. Get over it, snowflake.

And one of the best defences against them is having more of your own and
being really prepared to use them.


At least be grateful that advanced targeting means the ones we have are
not so big.


And improved anti-missile defences mean we don't need so many

TW = Thik Wanka



--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

In article ,
newshound writes
On 4/23/2017 8:09 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/04/2017 13:53, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I also admire politicians who have genuine principles, for standing
up for what they believe in, and not bowing down to party and career
progression. There aren't anywhere near enough of them. People like
Corbyn, Blair, Tony Benn, Hilary Benn, Heseltine, Tebbit, Thatcher,
etc. That doesn't mean I support their views - I don't think anyone
could support all the above, but I respect them for being genuine
to their own beliefs.
Not sure how Blair got into that list... He always seemed incapable
of having an opinion until a focus group told him which one to have!

The Blair principle was that, unless you can actually get an elected
government, you really can't make significant changes to policy. And it
has to be said that the Blair governments put much-needed money into
the NHS.

Typical Labour. If you see a problem throw money at it.
That's a sound principle. Shame the Tories are *so* much better at it.

And are we really so well off with shoot-from-the hip and highly
opinionated leaders like Boris and Trump? Or Corbyn, for that matter.

--
bert

In article , critcher
writes
On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote:
In article , critcher
writes
On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:

Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now.
You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up
that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time.
The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its
counterparts in the EU,

Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the
money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the
country is still in hock.
Another one who doesn't understand the relationship between debt and
deficit
--
bert

In article , Capitol
writes
critcher wrote:
On 24/04/2017 18:05, bert wrote:
In article , critcher
writes
On 23/04/2017 11:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:

Course the Tories can't blame anyone else for their cock ups now.
You think an economy can be sorted in 6 years from the utter cock up
that was inherited and with the Lib-Dems on your back all the time.
The UK economy (except Scotland) is doing a lot better than its
counterparts in the EU,

Oh they will blame someone else,and can you believe that after all the
money that has been taken out of the economy by "AUSTERITY" that the
country is still in hock.

You don't seem to have noticed that there has been no austerity,
that's why the borrowing is so high.
If you want to see austerity take a look at Greece.
--
bert

In article , critcher
writes
On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote:


they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some and
employ more. ;-)
Part time is better than zero hours contracts.


Not all zero hour contracts are bad.
Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc.
Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad"

No one is saying they are inherently bad, but they are only good if you
want them.
There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15
hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your
right to negotiate that with your employer.
It already is. And the courts have also intervened, which rarely gets
mentioned. Holiday pay should now be based on your average ACTUAL hours
not your contractual hours.
--
bert

In article , John
Rumm writes
On 24/04/2017 19:33, critcher wrote:
On 24/04/2017 18:07, bert wrote:


they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some
and
employ more. ;-)
Part time is better than zero hours contracts.


Not all zero hour contracts are bad.
Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc.
Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad"

No one is saying they are inherently bad, but they are only good if you
want them.

There should be a minimum term for employment contracts, perhaps 15
hours per week, and if you want to go below that then it should be your
right to negotiate that with your employer.

And what if the employer can't offer 15 hours a week? The choice may be
10 hours/week or none. You seem to be suggesting that legislating so
that "none" is the only option on offer. Who benefits from that?



Self righteous socialists who put ideology before the well-being of
their own followers.
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 24/04/17 18:07, bert wrote:
In article . com,
lid writes
On 23/04/2017 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

On 23/04/2017 08:26, harry wrote:
I see Corbyn is trying bribe the electorate with more public holidays.
All part of the socialist "Money-Grows-On-Trees" in Lala Land
syndrome.
They should thinking how to fix the economy instead of heading for
economic disaster.


Think about it..

they want to reduce unemployment so have less working days for some and
employ more. ;-)
Part time is better than zero hours contracts.


Not all zero hour contracts are bad.
Some people want to be on the NHS bank system and supply teaching, etc.
Labour party mantra - Chant in Unison "Zero hour contracts are bad"

Zero hours contracts wouldn't be there if minimum waqes weren't so high.


Yes they would because there are situations where they are advantageous
- supply teachers are an example already quoted. The alternative would
be the overhead of raising a separate detailed contract every time you
wished to engage a supply teacher even if just for a day.
--
bert

In article , TimW
writes
On 25/04/17 10:12, TimW wrote:
On 24/04/17 17:28, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 24/04/17 07:52, Richard wrote:
"TimW" wrote in message news
On 23/04/17 08:26, harry wrote:
[snipped Harry]
Responding to the title only, I happened to read Craig Murray this
morning on the Marr Interview with Corbyn:

" ...he went for the tabloid favourite. Would Corbyn push the button
and fire nuclear missiles? It says a very great deal about our
politics that it is taken by the media establishment as axiomatic that
anybody who will not participate in the probable destruction of the
entire human race, is the crazy person in the room."

He does have a point.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...byn-conundrum/

TW

Perhaps he does, but it is flawed.
Are you prepared to simply die to let an enemy succeed?
Beachy Head is that way

Don't understand that at all.

Mutually assured destruction is possibly mad, but better than unilateral
destruction by the other side.
The person who will not participate in the deployment of the deterrent
is taking a suicidal stance.


Talk about flawed?

How many states have so far ensured their own destruction by not having
Nuclear Weapons? I think none.
In what sense is the destruction of the entire human race a better
result than the destruction of some of them?
TW

And while it is on my mind - The USA has had a lot of Nukes for a long
time. Has that contributed to peace?
Yes. In the post-WW2 era it deterred the USSR from invading western
Europe.
Have those nukes meant that the US hasn't needed to get involved in
foreign wars? What about GB, we have had one shoddy war after another?
What about Iran? Israel? Peaceful? Is North Korea's Nuclear program
keeping the country safe? I don't think so.

TW

But there has been no use of nuclear weapons in these wars. That is the
point of nuclear weapons. It makes sure no one uses nuclear weapons.
Maybe if everyone had them they would prevent conventional wars also.
But then look how WW1 started.
--
bert

On 25/04/17 11:00, bert wrote:
In article ,
newshound writes
On 4/23/2017 8:09 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/04/2017 13:53, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I also admire politicians who have genuine principles, for standing
up for what they believe in, and not bowing down to party and career
progression. There aren't anywhere near enough of them. People like
Corbyn, Blair, Tony Benn, Hilary Benn, Heseltine, Tebbit, Thatcher,
etc. That doesn't mean I support their views - I don't think anyone
could support all the above, but I respect them for being genuine
to their own beliefs.
Not sure how Blair got into that list... He always seemed incapable
of having an opinion until a focus group told him which one to have!

The Blair principle was that, unless you can actually get an elected
government, you really can't make significant changes to policy. And
it has to be said that the Blair governments put much-needed money
into the NHS.

Typical Labour. If you see a problem throw money at it.

Throw *someone elses* money at it.
And make sures your chums are there to catch it.

That's a sound principle. Shame the Tories are *so* much better at it.

And are we really so well off with shoot-from-the hip and highly
opinionated leaders like Boris and Trump? Or Corbyn, for that matter.



--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain