Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Greek election result: Tspiras set to return as PM

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited September 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Greek election result: Tspiras set to return as PM

With 40% of the vote counted, Alexis Tsipras seems set to return to power #GreekElections http://t.co/eQq0yeeojq pic.twitter.com/fMkl9plHCN

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • first in ppe
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited September 2015
    Syriza fading slightly as 60% counted.

    Chance of them losing a seat to the Commies (who've just lost one to the River)...
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,277
    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253
    edited September 2015
    Congratulations to Prime Minister Tsipras. Let us hope for the sake of your people they can go without another election for a few years.

    Though given the electoral chaos in the past few years, and to permit a terrible joke, might there not be a chance for a new party of 'Old Democracy' to sweep to popularity?
  • FPT

    On the subject of misleadingly with-it party names, I nominate Wildrose.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
  • EPGEPG Posts: 2,805

    FPT

    On the subject of misleadingly with-it party names, I nominate Wildrose.

    FPT I thought Sendero Luminoso and Khmer Rouge had the largest ratio of nomenclature aesthetic to moral probity.

    One country very near Britain has as its leading parties the Clan of the Gael, the Warband of Destiny, and Ourselves.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253
    Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,277
    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 2,805
    kle4 said:

    Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.

    This is literally the Taiwanese solution...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,292
    RodCrosby said:

    Syriza fading slightly as 60% counted.

    Chance of them losing a seat to the Commies (who've just lost one to the River)...

    Do you have a link to a live results map?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Currently 4 remainder seats available

    Eligible remainders

    0.87 Golden Dawn
    0.77 Independent Greeks
    0.63 Syriza
    0.62 River
    0.50 Communists
    0.47 ND
    0.08 PASOK
    0.05 Union of Centrists
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,646
    @Sunil FPT

    viewcode said:



    Can we just agree that Carly has the best name? "Madame President Fiorina" sounds wicked cool. "President Trump" just sounds like a fart.

    Fiorina ("Fury") 161 was the Prison Planet in Alien 3 :)
    Horribly, I already knew that...
  • kle4 said:

    Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.

    I think there is an opportunity for the Illiberals and the Undemocratic Party. Or even the Scottish Regionalist Party.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663

    FPT

    On the subject of misleadingly with-it party names, I nominate Wildrose.

    While the prize for most reassuringly misleading goes to...

    wait for it...

    drum roll...

    the Conservatives
  • Greek COrbyn wins on anti austerity ticket
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    And a seat flips from Syriza to ND...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253
    EPG said:

    kle4 said:

    Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.

    This is literally the Taiwanese solution...
    Silly of them - didn't they see that Babylon5 episode about an alien race which had the same system, with the added idiocy of picking one's colour at random? It's like people don't even learn from sci-fi anymore.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,663
    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.

    But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).

    As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 2,805

    Greek COrbyn wins on anti austerity ticket

    No. It is more like Greek Corbyn wins by literally* handing over his cojones to Brussels.

    *figuratively
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    0.82 Golden Dawn
    0.77 Independent Greeks
    0.68 River
    0.58 ND
    0.56 Syriza
    0.50 Communists
    0.06 PASOK
    0.02 Union of Centrists
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    And flips back to Syriza. Knife edge.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    And again...
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Advantage Syriza again
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,277
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.

    But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).

    As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.
    Moreover, the Islamists do not have a negotiable political objective (like the IRA), they simply want to kill us, because of who we are, or at the very least subjugate us, so they can impose a Caliphate and tax the infidels. And rape pagan women.

    There is no dealing with this. Islam is undergoing a psychosis, whose origins lie far in the past (before western intervention) and the outcome of which is deeply unpredictable.

    We should insulate and defend ourselves, and our liberal quasi-Christian culture, and exclude Muslims. That Hungarian nutter is right.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,478
    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.

    I think this is a perfectly valid question without a certain answer, not least because time changes things. However one thing is screamingly obvious, there is risk and the safest way of dealing with that risk is to take things slowly. The worst way of dealing with that risk is the Merkel solution. What a bloody stupid woman she has turned out to be
  • Charles said:

    FPT

    On the subject of misleadingly with-it party names, I nominate Wildrose.

    While the prize for most reassuringly misleading goes to...

    wait for it...

    drum roll...

    the Conservatives
    Corbyn seems to think putting 'People' in front of everything makes it easily sellable indeed probably magically perfect. The time to worry I suppose is when he starts talking about People's Democracy. We know it will not benefit the people and it will not be democratic.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 2,805
    More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,646
    kle4 said:

    EPG said:

    kle4 said:

    Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.

    This is literally the Taiwanese solution...
    Silly of them - didn't they see that Babylon5 episode about an alien race which had the same system, with the added idiocy of picking one's colour at random? It's like people don't even learn from sci-fi anymore.
    Are you sure it's not the the Tomorrow People episode of the same name?
  • I see that Varoufakis voted Popular Unity. At least he has kept his go ads, rather than serving them up to Merkel et al.
  • EPG said:

    More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.

    A pity that Democrats 66 didn't form 3 years later.
  • isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    For comparison:

    Israel 16% ('67 borders)
    India 14%
    Philippines 10%
    Sri Lanka 10%
    Thailand 5%
    China 2%
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,478
    SeanT said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.

    But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).

    As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.
    Moreover, the Islamists do not have a negotiable political objective (like the IRA), they simply want to kill us, because of who we are, or at the very least subjugate us, so they can impose a Caliphate and tax the infidels. And rape pagan women.

    There is no dealing with this. Islam is undergoing a psychosis, whose origins lie far in the past (before western intervention) and the outcome of which is deeply unpredictable.

    We should insulate and defend ourselves, and our liberal quasi-Christian culture, and exclude Muslims. That Hungarian nutter is right.
    I sympathise with the gist of your view although I think it might have been more equably expressed
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253
    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    EPG said:

    kle4 said:

    Honestly party names just hold you back when you want to perform ideological shifts (not that it stops party's in their transformations, but it can look silly) - we should just go down the route of Byzantine chariot racing/political groupings, and go by colours, like The Blues and the Greens. Simpler.

    This is literally the Taiwanese solution...
    Silly of them - didn't they see that Babylon5 episode about an alien race which had the same system, with the added idiocy of picking one's colour at random? It's like people don't even learn from sci-fi anymore.
    Are you sure it's not the the Tomorrow People episode of the same name?
    Before my time, regrettably. It was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geometry_of_Shadows
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited September 2015
    Commies now threatening Syriza's 145th seat...

    River in danger too.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Charles said:

    FPT

    On the subject of misleadingly with-it party names, I nominate Wildrose.

    While the prize for most reassuringly misleading goes to...

    wait for it...

    drum roll...

    the Conservatives
    Corbyn seems to think putting 'People' in front of everything makes it easily sellable indeed probably magically perfect. The time to worry I suppose is when he starts talking about People's Democracy. We know it will not benefit the people and it will not be democratic.
    I am a little surprised that Corbyn has not read enough Anarcho-syndicalist tracts to be familiar with Bakunin's observation:

    "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick"

    Mikhail Bakunin
  • EPGEPG Posts: 2,805
    The leading party of government on the Danish right is called Left. The centrist moderates are called the Radical Left. They are so centrist and moderate that both their left wing and their right wing split off in the last 10 years, leaving only the centrist centrists in the Radical Left. There was a Right but they are now Conservatives. There is a Unity List which for no good reason chose as its English translation the Red-Green Alliance.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,478
    EPG said:

    More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.

    Screaming Lord Sutch will be turning in his grave in indignation. All of the above cannot hold a candle to the Official Monster Raving Looney Party - it is the biggest tent possible.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,002
    EPG said:

    More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.

    Other fun ones are the Left in Denmark, who are the main conservative party, the Radical Left, who are roughly like the SDP but with added pacifism, and the Liberal Democrats in Russia, who are a party led by an illberal demagogue.

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,478

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    For comparison:

    Israel 16% ('67 borders)
    India 14%
    Philippines 10%
    Sri Lanka 10%
    Thailand 5%
    China 2%
    Israel's a good one
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Greek COrbyn wins on anti austerity ticket

    He won on a pro-austerity ticket, a severe one in fact.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited September 2015
    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict that ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    the Liberal Democrats in Russia, who are a party led by an illberal demagogue.

    Mr. Z, otherwise known as the anti-matter Ashdown...
  • 5.5 % is excellent for KKE and is a vote for inclusive politics.The 7.29% for Golden Dawn is still too high but indicates they are on the way down in the Greek peoples' minds.

    GD now seem to be on 7.03%, but got 6.9% last time out.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    RodCrosby said:

    the Liberal Democrats in Russia, who are a party led by an illberal demagogue.

    Mr. Z, otherwise known as the anti-matter Ashdown...
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Syriza/Commies close to a seat-flip.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 2,805
    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
    Or Belgium
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,478
    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Advantage Commies...
  • EPG said:

    More names. The Irish have some good names in translation but none of Britain's near neighbours can beat the Dutch. Back in the day when the Netherlands had a pillarised political system and society, Dutch Protestants were split between the Anti-Revolutionary Party and the Christian Historical Union. They merged with a Catholic group once called the Roman-Catholic State Party into the contemporary Christian Democratic Appeal. The Pacifist Socialist Party left itself very little room for policy ambiguity while the Democrats '66 do not sound quite as modern and up-to-date as they did at their foundation almost 50 years ago.

    Screaming Lord Sutch will be turning in his grave in indignation. All of the above cannot hold a candle to the Official Monster Raving Looney Party - it is the biggest tent possible.
    Sadly as event after event after event has unfolded it is clear he cast his chosen net nothing nearly wide enough.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 2,805
    The most inappropriate party name may be the Chinese Communist Party.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    @Sunil

    Re: "Madness? This is Syrizia!"

    It looks to me that Sparta is one of the regions that voted ND, Syrizia was too mad even for them!
  • Off-topic but ...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34301969

    "Kezia Dugdale would allow indyref 'free vote'"

    In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.

    This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)

    One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.

    We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253
    EPG said:

    The most inappropriate party name may be the Chinese Communist Party.

    I've seen someone suggest Chinese National Party would be more appropriate for their current stances, but for historical reasons of how the modern nation came to be formed that would clearly not work.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited September 2015
    Advantage Syriza.
    Golden Dawn seat now in the mix.

    5 Remainder seats available
    0.999 Union of Centrists
    0.747 Independent Greeks
    0.719 Golden Dawn
    0.708 River
    0.691 Syriza
    0.634 Communists
    0.491 ND
    0.010 PASOK
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,478
    All that expense for nothing? I think Merkel might have thrown in a candidate or two since she's now so delusional
  • Midlands powerhouse
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
    I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253

    Midlands powerhouse
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
    I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.

    I will support whatever policy means I am not charged at train stations for the privilege of using the toilet.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2015

    Midlands powerhouse
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
    I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.

    Birmingham is a phoenix. Every few decades the city centre is destroyed and born again. Sometimes they get it right, this seems to be one of those times.


    (Note for SeanT: looks ripe for conversion to a mosque...)
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,277

    SeanT said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.

    But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).

    As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.
    Moreover, the Islamists do not have a negotiable political objective (like the IRA), they simply want to kill us, because of who we are, or at the very least subjugate us, so they can impose a Caliphate and tax the infidels. And rape pagan women.

    There is no dealing with this. Islam is undergoing a psychosis, whose origins lie far in the past (before western intervention) and the outcome of which is deeply unpredictable.

    We should insulate and defend ourselves, and our liberal quasi-Christian culture, and exclude Muslims. That Hungarian nutter is right.
    I sympathise with the gist of your view although I think it might have been more equably expressed
    = you're a coward.
  • BTW saw the BoB Flypast from my back garden at lunchtime today!
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,143
    edited September 2015
    Scott_P said:

    //twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/645707802359365632

    He's very miffed Dave got a majority without him isn't he.
  • isam said:


    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.

    I wouldn't put it down to religion so much as groups with interests/an identity/views that are counter to the aims of the host country. Nothing wrong with pursuing a different religion in private so long as your fundamental loyalty lies with the sovereign.

    The danger comes not when the group itself rises up (always unlikely they would win), but when an outside power decides to use them as a pretext and attack you to 'defend the rights' of the minority. A very old tactic of power politics.
  • HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 996
    I see Paul Mason has strapped himself into his the rising left space rocket, like he did at the last Greek election...and when Hollande got it....and when Ed was moving left....
    Bless him.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Golden Dawn seat flips to Communists.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253
    saddened said:

    Scott_P said:

    //witter.com/dailymailuk/status/645707802359365632

    He's very miffed Dave got a majority without him isn't he.
    I do wonder if there was much rewriting in places - while it looks like it still lays into Cameron, the fact Cameron is now seen as a winner, not a two time failure (as I'm sure he would have been, however fairly, if he'd only managed to be largest party again), must surely have led to a few shifts in tone or stated interpretation of the man - things that would have been held up as examples of where Cameron went wrong, but which in the end did not in fact hold him back.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 4,741

    BTW saw the BoB Flypast from my back garden at lunchtime today!

    I saw an old East Coast line train with carriages in a siding on the Liverpool street - Colchester line a week or so ago - I immediately thought of you!
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,478
    edited September 2015

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe

    I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.

    But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).

    As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.

    Moreover, the Islamists do not have a negotiable political objective (like the IRA), they simply want to kill us, because of who we are, or at the very least subjugate us, so they can impose a Caliphate and tax the infidels. And rape pagan women.

    There is no dealing with this. Islam is undergoing a psychosis, whose origins lie far in the past (before western intervention) and the outcome of which is deeply unpredictable.

    We should insulate and defend ourselves, and our liberal quasi-Christian culture, and exclude Muslims. That Hungarian nutter is right.

    I sympathise with the gist of your view although I think it might have been more equably expressed

    = you're a coward.

    Why? There is more persuasion in moderation than a febrile rant
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    Off-topic but ...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34301969

    "Kezia Dugdale would allow indyref 'free vote'"

    In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.

    This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)

    One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.

    We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.

    You can't buck history.

    The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.

    Unfortunately for Labour, it is probably too late for them, they are dead in the water, sliding down below 20%. And the neutral view, likely to be closely tied to the Federalist/Devo-Max view which was once the most popular choice, is waning in popularity.

    Before the First Referendum campaign, the middle ground was heavily favoured and while we don't yet have polling of the three way question we can see from such polling in Catalonia that the main casualty of denying an Independence movement is always the middle ground - support for a Federal solution in Spain has plummeted.
  • kle4 said:

    Midlands powerhouse
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
    I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.

    I will support whatever policy means I am not charged at train stations for the privilege of using the toilet.
    Free bogs at St Pancras International!

    Also Blackfriars seemed to have been free yesterday (coin slots not working).
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2015
    isam said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
    ·

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
    Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.

    The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
  • Midlands powerhouse
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
    I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.

    Must check it out tomorrow! I had a sneak peak of the eastern foyer and exit on Friday, and the ceiling has been on partial display for weeks.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253
    Dair said:

    Off-topic but ...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34301969

    "Kezia Dugdale would allow indyref 'free vote'"

    In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.

    This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)

    One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.

    We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.

    You can't buck history.

    The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
    I happen to agree Scottish independence will happen, and I think pretty soon, but you very much can 'buck history'. Even seemingly inevitable events are not actually inevitable, no matter how much afterwards people try to claim they were, or people beforehand try to claim their favoured cause is.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 18,458
    edited September 2015

    BTW saw the BoB Flypast from my back garden at lunchtime today!

    Saw the Red Arrows whilst with the little-un in the park fly directly overhead in V formation, probably away from Duxford. They were followed a few minutes later by six or seven Spitfires and, I think, a Hurricane.

    Heaven.

    Although the little 'un paid no attention to any of them. I'm going to have to train him better ...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    Off-topic but ...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34301969

    "Kezia Dugdale would allow indyref 'free vote'"

    In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.

    This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)

    One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.

    We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.

    You can't buck history.

    The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
    I happen to agree Scottish independence will happen, and I think pretty soon, but you very much can 'buck history'. Even seemingly inevitable events are not actually inevitable, no matter how much afterwards people try to claim they were, or people beforehand try to claim their favoured cause is.
    Though rather inconveniently the main obstacle to Scottish independence are the 55% of Scots who voted against it, in their once in a generation vote on the matter.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.



    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
    ·

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
    Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.

    The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
    Islamic State wants to rule the East as well as the West:

    http://pamelagellercom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/is.jpeg
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited September 2015
    Scott_P said:
    Ouch.
    Cocaine, having sex with a dead pig, Crosby saying he's a "tosser" and "posh sh*t". What a book.
    Cameron's base are little old ladies in the midlands, they won't be so excited by this.
  • Floater said:

    BTW saw the BoB Flypast from my back garden at lunchtime today!

    I saw an old East Coast line train with carriages in a siding on the Liverpool street - Colchester line a week or so ago - I immediately thought of you!
    Actually in East Coast livery?
  • Midlands powerhouse
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
    I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.

    I bet the platform area is still a dark, dank and narrow hell-hole.

    They've fixed the wrong bit ...
  • I raise you Wolverhampton to Birmingham International (for Airport and NEC) as the rail route served by the most number of operators:

    Arriva Trains Wales
    Cross Country
    London Midland
    Virgin Trains

    Anyone think of a route served by more than four operators?
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited September 2015

    isam said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, butm countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
    ·

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don'tden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
    Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.

    The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
    Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?

    And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,478
    edited September 2015
    kle4 said:

    Dair said:

    Off-topic but ...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34301969

    "Kezia Dugdale would allow indyref 'free vote'"

    In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.

    This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)

    One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.

    We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.

    You can't buck history.

    The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.
    I happen to agree Scottish independence will happen, and I think pretty soon, but you very much can 'buck history'. Even seemingly inevitable events are not actually inevitable, no matter how much afterwards people try to claim they were, or people beforehand try to claim their favoured cause is.
    I agree. The Scottish independence issue is, I believe, considerably aided by the rest of the UK really not giving a damn, despite all of the protestations of politicians. Out damn spot!
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,277
    I'm by no means an expert on conflict theory, or on Islam.

    But lessons from Ireland suggest that one of the most important requirements for a successful or threatening terrorist campaign is a broadly sympathetic cadre of non-combants amongst whom they can hide and find non-violent forms of support (tip offs, spotting, early warning, resupply, distraction etc).

    As for what percentage that i, who knows, but I can certainly believe that there is a threshold.

    Moreover, the Islamists do not have a negotiable political objective (like the IRA), they simply want to kill us, because of who we are, or at the very least subjugate us, so they can impose a Caliphate and tax the infidels. And rape pagan women.

    There is no dealing with this. Islam is undergoing a psychosis, whose origins lie far in the past (before western intervention) and the outcome of which is deeply unpredictable.

    We should insulate and defend ourselves, and our liberal quasi-Christian culture, and exclude Muslims. That Hungarian nutter is right.

    I sympathise with the gist of your view although I think it might have been more equably expressed

    = you're a coward.

    Why? There is more persuasion in moderation than a febrile rant

    That is true when times are normal. But we are now beyond that time. Millions are heading our way.
  • Midlands powerhouse
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
    I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.

    I bet the platform area is still a dark, dank and narrow hell-hole.

    They've fixed the wrong bit ...
    No it's reasonably brightly lit now (I've used it every weekday for the last few weeks).
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 4,741

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.

    Do you believe there is a maximum percentage Muslim population beyond which, as things stand, we should not stray, as it will endanger our liberal values as we know them?

    I do believe that (as I've said before). It is 10%, and even that is menacingly high.

    Ask this of a lefty and they will scream racist (as you do), but that is because they are cretins. And moral cowards.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, but the proportion of the country that was of a religion that had rapidly risen to a critical mass that meant it could attack the dominant culture. I think @Charles called it conflict theory.

    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism

    <1% Armenia · Belarus · Czech Republic · Estonia · Finland · Hungary · Iceland · Latvia · Lithuania · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Poland · Portugal · Romania · San Marino · Slovakia · Ukraine

    1–2% Andorra · Croatia · Ireland

    2–4% Italy · Luxembourg · Norway · Serbia · Slovenia · Spain

    4–5% Denmark · Greece · Liechtenstein · United Kingdom

    5–10% Austria · Belgium · Bulgaria · France · Germany · Netherlands · Sweden · Switzerland

    10–20% Georgia · Montenegro · Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe </p>
    For comparison:

    Israel 16% ('67 borders)
    India 14%
    Philippines 10%
    Sri Lanka 10%
    Thailand 5%
    China 2%
    Leaving Israel aside at least all of those are peaceful.....

    oh
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.


    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
    ·

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
    Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.

    The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
    Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?
    Ilford North for one!
  • Dair said:


    You can't buck history.

    The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.

    Nothing need be 'done'. Scottish people are very wise. They have rejected independence but embraced the SNP. An excellent strategy, and if given the opportunity they will do precisely the same again.

  • BTW saw the BoB Flypast from my back garden at lunchtime today!

    Saw the Red Arrows whilst with the little-un in the park fly directly overhead in V formation, probably away from Duxford. They were followed a few minutes later by six or seven Spitfires and, I think, a Hurricane.

    Heaven.

    Although the little 'un paid no attention to any of them. I'm going to have to train him better ...
    Didn't see the Red Arrows, only the WW2 era planes, six of them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,253

    isam said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.



    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
    ·

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    a
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
    Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.

    The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
    Islamic State wants to rule the East as well as the West:

    http://pamelagellercom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/is.jpeg
    I had to google 'qoqzaz' from that map, as that is a seriously distinctive (not to mention impossible to Scrabble) name, with a fairly interesting piece from god knows who trying to figure out if the map could possibly be real (and concluding it makes no sense), and I really really had hoped 'qoqzaz' would be real (supposedly that part is close, but I've no way of knowing).
  • kle4 said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.



    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
    ·

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    a
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
    Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.

    The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
    Islamic State wants to rule the East as well as the West:

    http://pamelagellercom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/is.jpeg
    I had to google 'qoqzaz' from that map, as that is a seriously distinctive (not to mention impossible to Scrabble) name, with a fairly interesting piece from god knows who trying to figure out if the map could possibly be real (and concluding it makes no sense), and I really really had hoped 'qoqzaz' would be real (supposedly that part is close, but I've no way of knowing).
    Caucasus in English, presumably.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,277
    Dair said:

    Off-topic but ...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34301969

    "Kezia Dugdale would allow indyref 'free vote'"

    In fact she seems quite happy with Labour being neutral on the constitutional question, with members and MPs/MSPs (only really need the "s" on one of those don't I?) free to campaign on either side.

    This is really something quite extraordinary, particularly bearing in mind Labour is a "British" party. (I understand that SLAB have toyed with and rejected the idea of breaking out and becoming an independent party, in comparable to the German CSU/CDU situation in Bavaria and outside it. In that kind of context this sort of position would make a bit more sense.)

    One criticism I have seen levelled at Jeremy Corbyn from (very) left-wingers is that he takes an "progressive and anti-imperialist" stance on Ireland, but a "backwards and imperialist" view on Scotland. I'd be interested in how he would stand on Indyref 2.0.

    We seem to be creeping ever closer to a situation in which a national party is quite happy to dump its former fief and stronghold, one of its historical heartlands which bequeathed it many of its major historical figures, and moreover the source of many of its previous majorities. Incredible.

    You can't buck history.

    The direction of travel is clear to all by the most boneheaded loyalists and the idea that there is something can be done to prevent Scottish Independence is clearly nonsense.

    Unfortunately for Labour, it is probably too late for them, they are dead in the water, sliding down below 20%. And the neutral view, likely to be closely tied to the Federalist/Devo-Max view which was once the most popular choice, is waning in popularity.

    Before the First Referendum campaign, the middle ground was heavily favoured and while we don't yet have polling of the three way question we can see from such polling in Catalonia that the main casualty of denying an Independence movement is always the middle ground - support for a Federal solution in Spain has plummeted.
    And yet no western democracy - Spain, Canada, the UK - has actually seen a secession.

    Right now my guess is that Scots will never make the final leap (nor perhaps the Catalans). The risk will always seem too great, especially as the world gets nervier, which I believe it will for the next decade or more, as globalisation and Islamism play out.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.


    Look at the proportion of Muslims in traditionally non Muslim countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
    ·

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don't look racist, but do it anyway.

    Indeed I secretly suspect that is what the Brit establishment IS doing, though half heartedly and very belatedly. It's countries like Sweden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
    Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.

    The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
    Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?
    Ilford North for one!
    Ah but that is another thing... There are several religions over 5% in ilford North... The problem is when there is one dominant religion and one insurgent. Spreading it around is a way of stopping trouble
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, butm countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
    ·

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
    Entirely agree. It's painfully clear. We should cease Muslim immigration from now on. Erect some strange bogus barriers about language and income that don'tden or Germany that boggle the brain. They don't even have imperial associations with Muslim lands, to explain an open door, yet they invite them in. F*cking madness.
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti immigration. Despite how it may seem, it is nothing to do with one race, religion or belief system being superior or inferior, I am just convinced that mixing past a certain point is a recipe for disaster due to the conflict hat ensues, and I would say this applies whoever the majority is, in any circumstance. So although I say it as a white, Christian-ish Englishman in Essex, it would apply equally if I were a Pakistani Muslim in Lahore or a communist in China
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
    Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.

    The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
    Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?

    And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
    Is there an armed group calling themselves "Christian State"? "Hindu State"? "Buddhist State"? "Jehovah's Witnesses State"?
  • Midlands powerhouse
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
    I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.

    I bet the platform area is still a dark, dank and narrow hell-hole.

    They've fixed the wrong bit ...
    No it's reasonably brightly lit now (I've used it every weekday for the last few weeks).
    Are the platforms still infeasibly narrow?

    The platform area in the 1980s was a real dump. Dark, smoky (from diesels), congested, and noisy. It was hardly a fitting entrance to what was, even then, a beautiful city in parts.

    Mind you, I haven't been back there for about ten years or so, and last time was on a walk along the canal. How that area had changed for the better!
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for David Herdson


    OK I'll give you the S K Tremayne Are You A Cretin question.


    I argued here at the time of Charlie Hebdo that it wasn't necessarily the religion of Islam that was the problem, butm countries (since the enlightenment).. once it hits 4-10% you start to see terrorism
    ·

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
    Entirely agree. .
    The correlation between numbers and violence is the whole reason why I personally am so anti ahore or a communist in China
    Even with such a lucid explanation lefties will still label you racist, with a full on sneer.
    If they could point to a country that has had a huge increase in numbers of any religion (from 0-1% to 5-6% of population in 30-40 years) and not suffered immense civil strife then they may be in a position to argue

    Even Mormons in 19th Century America caused a lot of trouble until they were given a piece of land to call their own.
    Hindus, Sikhs, Bhuddists and Jains considerably exceed your 5% figure in much of the country, but terrorist incidents or civil unrest are really quite remarkably rare. It is not just about numbers, it is about the underlying culture.

    The prickly arrogance of Islam, which proclaims its superiority while manifestly being at the root of economic political and social failure, generates a uniquely toxic cognitive dissonance.
    Where do those religions exceed 4-10%?

    And why are so many Muslims, the massive, landslide, majority, not violent extremists? The problem is there are so many Muslims that there must be a enough extremists to be significant.
    Is there an armed group calling themselves "Christian State"? "Hindu State"? "Buddhist State"? "Jehovah's Witnesses State"?
    No because there are no places where those religions have gone from being 0% to 5-10% of a population in a generation. I contend if there were, there would be
  • I believe that's 5 elections in 6 years in Greece, all that money, all that effort, no progress at all beyond sabre rattling. What a basket case of a country, why don't they grow a pair, leave the EU, go back to the drachma and start again instead of whining and blaming everybody else.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Independent Greeks seat vulnerable to Golden Dawn.
  • Midlands powerhouse
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/20/new-birmingham-new-street-amazing-just-first-impressions
    I'm not sure there is a great deal to renationalise.

    I bet the platform area is still a dark, dank and narrow hell-hole.

    They've fixed the wrong bit ...
    No it's reasonably brightly lit now (I've used it every weekday for the last few weeks).
    Are the platforms still infeasibly narrow?

    The platform area in the 1980s was a real dump. Dark, smoky (from diesels), congested, and noisy. It was hardly a fitting entrance to what was, even then, a beautiful city in parts.

    Mind you, I haven't been back there for about ten years or so, and last time was on a walk along the canal. How that area had changed for the better!
    This is the old main entrance (c/o yours truly!), dating from 2009:

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Birmingham_New_Street_stn_building.JPG?uselang=en-gb

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Birmingham_New_Street_eastern_entrance.JPG?uselang=en-gb

Sign In or Register to comment.