Honestly, Smithers, I don't know why Harvard even bothered to show up. They barely even won!
Their cheating was even more rampant than last year sir.
Honestly, Smithers, I don't know why Harvard even bothered to show up. They barely even won!
Their cheating was even more rampant than last year sir.
Last edited by Clopin; 11-20-2016 at 05:49 PM.
So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether
Originally Posted by Clopin
May has apparently said no dice (or I guess no vacancy) to Trump's suggestion. It seems a bit cold, but I suppose she was in a difficult position. May's not on a position to piss Farage off, but if she jumped at it she'd be pilloried by the Yank haters as the next Tony Bear.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 11-22-2016 at 10:22 PM.
Theresa May doesn't like Nigel Farage because he's not an insider and she was miffed when Trump invited Farage to support him on the hustings.
Farage is undiplomatically indiscreet but, like Trump, speaks his mind come what may.
As for Tony Blair, Nigel has publicly stated that: 'He can go to Hell.'
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Somehow I don't see Roosevelt and Churchill here. But it looks like Farage and Trump have their own special relationship now. I imagine that's politically good for Farage. Speaking of Churchill, Trump is supposed to have returned to the Oval Office the bust of Churchill that Obama removed. It will be interesting to see where this all goes.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 11-22-2016 at 10:20 PM.
Interestingly enough Farage isn't a career politician but one whose sole motivation was to remove the UK from the EU: having achieved that goal, he sees Trump's victory as a means of reinforcing Brexit and, perhaps more importantly, a major blow to globalisation.
Regarding Churchill's bust in the Oval Office, there may come a time when a bust of Donald Trump is placed in 10 Downing Street.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Hopefully it will earn its place there, but obviously it is too early to talk about it. I thought Brexit was being held up in Parliament. Is that a stonewalling or just the process? Is there a timetable yet?
To be fair to Obama he never had the bust removed, the bust from the Oval Office was property of the British government and on loan to the Bush administration, when Bush left office the loan expired and the bust was returned to Britain. There happens to be another Churchill bust that does belong to the Whitehouse in another room and there was apparently confusion at first because people thought that bust happened to be the same one that used to be in the Oval Office.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Edit: This was about the Peterson thing - but fits with the Churchill's bust "story" too.
This is exactly how politics works nowadays, a circus of nonsense, a pretence of outrage. Meanwhile people are sleeping on the streets.
The most disheartening thing is that it is almost impossible to counter with reason. Take Orphan Pip's reply, well mannered, well reasoned and I think gets to the root of things. It is just the kind of reply that will make no headway against all the shouty bollocks.
As for Farage, he's the man "Post-truth" was invented for.
Last edited by prendrelemick; 11-23-2016 at 08:09 AM.
ay up
I'm not following you, Prend. I appreciate Pip's clarification that there were two busts. I think my tone has been fairly reasonable throughout. Honestly, all the outrage I have heard has come from you. I don't say that in a polemical way. You just seem to be reacting to things that haven't happened yet (shouty bollocks in response to Pip's polite response, for example). Brother, chill. Politics is a dirty game. Don't let it get under your skin.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 11-23-2016 at 08:37 AM.
Sorry pompey, you are always fair, open and reasonable. I'm actually horrified you thought I meant you! Or anyone else on this thread. I never seem to be able to put into words what I mean.
My post was about the Peterson thing and Pip's reply to that. I forgot to press the "Reply With Quote button" and hadn't even read the Bust bit when I first posted it.
On re-reading I see the addendum is clumsy and easily misconstrued, that is my bad and I apologise again.
My point was that Pip's is the kind of reply that carries no weight because it is well mannered. It is volume not veracity that counts these days.
Last edited by prendrelemick; 11-23-2016 at 09:42 AM.
ay up
Well, let's not get carried away. Heh.
Your apology is uncalled for but accepted. And I think LitNet has done a good job staying calm in these discussions. As you know, my point of view is let's make the best of it. For me, that means moving beyond the passions of the moment. That's why (for example) I support dropping the Clinton prosecution. The war's over. At least THAT war is. There are more important fights to be fought.
Listening to people support Trump or Clinton recently, I've noticed, again, that people can't hear the other side's arguments, because they are too busy trying to defend their own positions. By way of full disclosure, I am aware that I am no better than these people.
Regarding the discussion that Clopin and Orphan Pip are having about some Canadian law, it seems that the side Orphan Pip is supporting is politically naive. They are counting on the Canadian federal government to be able to defend them and to police whatever that legislation is they want to pass. It doesn't matter what that legislation is. What matters is they are annoying a psychology professor and others like Clopin enough to generate a potential backlash and they are too dumb to see coming.
This reminds me of a dead cat story about some chickens and a dog.
The chickens had free range of the yard. The dog was legally chained to his dog house. The chickens took advantage of this situation because they trusted that the globalist chain would protect them--forever--and so they tormented the dog, bullied him and thoroughly pissed him off. They knew how far his chain stretched and they would step just across the boundary, wait for him to lung and then wiggle their fat behinds at him as they ran off squawking at the big, bad dog on the chain. It was a lot of fun. Then one day when they least expected it, and frankly they never expected it ever to happen, the dog got off his chain.
End of story.
Now that unfortunate event (from the chickens' perspective) could have happened in multiple ways that someone with a bit of imagination could have anticipated. There could have been a regime change. Someone could have felt sorry for the dog and unsnapped his chain. That would be like Trump winning the Presidency and freeing the free market. Or, alternatively, there could have been some fundamental rot in the economy of his dog house where the chain was bolted and when the dog lunged that very last time at those chickens the bolt popped right out. That would be similar to a market crash.
Last edited by YesNo; 11-23-2016 at 01:27 PM.
There is a timetable but the phenomenal circumstances surrounding David Cameron's departure, left Mrs May little time to get something detailed together.
Basically it comes down activating article 50 to begin formal negotiations on leaving the EU in two years time. Article 50 is to be activated by April 2017.
During the interim we are seeing the remainers, led by big business, trying to delay the issue by application to the courts on a spurious charge that the government doesn't have the right to start G50 without parliament's approval.
They would say that, considering that a large majority of MPs want to remain: giving them a chance to scupper Brexit.
It's a bit more complicated but that's the gist of it.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Thank you. That clarifies what I had heard. If France goes with Le Pen, maybe Parliament will begin to see the hand writing on the wall. And of course if AfD beats Merkel it's game over. But I think that (an AfD victory, not one for FN) is unlikely.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
