|
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 03/07/2012 11:16, bob wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:41 am, Martin wrote: On 02/07/2012 16:19, allantracy wrote: Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network, in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations? There is something to what you say. The railways were saved first by compulsory amalgamation in 1925, then by nationalization in 1947, by which time three of the four companies were going out of business. Even Margaret Thatcher stopped short of privatization, being a somewhat cannier Friedmanite than her epigones (I'll give her that much). A major part of the financial problems the railways faced in the 1930s and later was that they were subject to government regulation of passenger fares and freight tarrifs, and subject to common carrier obligations, that were created when the railways were effectively regional monopolies, but that were no longer appropriate when motorised road traffic provided effective competition. Railways could not turn away freight that was expensive to transport (common carrier) and could not price it off (freight rates were controlled by government), nor could they increase rates on what should have been profitable traffic. That's before the lack of payment for wartime traffic loads are considered. Robin I'm sure I knew that a long time ago but thanks for the update. :-) -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 03/07/2012 12:13, 77002 wrote:
On Jul 2, 4:19 pm, wrote: Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network, in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations? Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly appropriate. To whom do you refer? Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc., etc.). Perhaps the greatest example of the difference between socialism and freedom is the Korean Peninsula. North of the DMZ is a giant concentration camp. There the people are forced to fawn over their incompetent "leader". Their years pass in hunger and missery. To the south of the DMZ there flourishes a modern nation. The people there enjoy freedom and increasing prosperity. Periodically they elect their leaders. Their goods are a byword for quality around the world. Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice. This may have been true for a few years while the state protected nascent industries, but the "free" market system has now been imposed and the Road to Serfdom has been taken. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 03/07/2012 12:22, 77002 wrote:
thing about them when, or if, returned to office. They just play the political game. Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real radical changes of any consequence for years. Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is. Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight, never see being undone was civil partnerships. There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. We've nearly been through the card now. How about capital punishment, safety belts are dangerous and smoking is good for you? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 04/07/2012 06:41, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 03/07/2012 12:22, 77002 wrote: thing about them when, or if, returned to office. They just play the political game. Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real radical changes of any consequence for years. Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is. Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight, never see being undone was civil partnerships. There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. We've nearly been through the card now. How about capital punishment, safety belts are dangerous and smoking is good for you? Whatever you do, don't mention global warming! -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 04/07/2012 06:42, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Buggered if I know... -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? Robin |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote: On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One would expect that to be the norm. |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
In article ,
77002 wrote: On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote: On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote: On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One would expect that to be the norm. I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two or more people to be joined in union. Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Jul 4, 12:27*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article , 77002 wrote: On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote: On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote: On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. *One would expect that to be the norm. I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two or more people to be joined in union. One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over the age of consent. |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/
In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote: On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:54:10PM -0500, wrote: In article , (Charles Ellson) wrote: Devolution (including the London Assembly & Mayor) That isn't devolution, that is a jumped-up county council. A bit more than that. It also controls a transport system carrying half the nation's passengers. That's pretty much *all* it is. The mayor has no significant powers over anything else that people care about. And I'm not sure what powers the assembly has at all. The mayor has rather more planning powers than any county council. The assembly is purely a scrutiny body. A bit like parliament. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
In uk.railway Martin Edwards twisted the electrons to say:
On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? AFAIK most of them couldn't care less what other consenting adults get up to in the spare time? This libertarian certainly doesn't care if two, or more, consenting adults want to get married ... Unless they're expressing a desire to either get married, or not get married as the case may be, *to me* I really don't see it as being any of my business! -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
Bruce wrote:
... just like David Cameron who pretends he had nothing to do with the last Tory government, in spite of his role as Special Adviser to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont. Pictures from Black Wednesday (16.9.92) when the pound was forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism show Lamont and Cameron strutting together. So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting himself (and the country) up for a great big fall. ;-) Cameron was in the positio of giving political advice. From the way Labour made such a fuss about it, you'd think Cameron had personally been running the UK's economic policy, taking all the decisions himself. This has been roundly denied by both Norman Lamont and John Major. However the Labour attacks may say something about how SpAds operated under their own government, and in turn says a lot about the mess they made. -- My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
In article ,
77002 wrote: On Jul 4, 12:27*pm, Nick Leverton wrote: In article , 77002 wrote: On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote: On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote: On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. *One would expect that to be the norm. I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two or more people to be joined in union. One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over the age of consent. Including, of course, the man and the other man ... Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Jul 4, 5:51*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article , 77002 wrote: On Jul 4, 12:27*pm, Nick Leverton wrote: In article , 77002 wrote: On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote: On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote: On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. *One would expect that to be the norm. I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two or more people to be joined in union. One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep conviction that they are right for each other. *Although I agree it is entirely, and only, their business. *That is assuming they are over the age of consent. Including, of course, the man and the other man ... If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square. |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
Bruce wrote: ... just like David Cameron who pretends he had nothing to do with the last Tory government, in spite of his role as Special Adviser to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont. Pictures from Black Wednesday (16.9.92) when the pound was forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism show Lamont and Cameron strutting together. So on the basis of your argument, David Cameron must also be setting himself (and the country) up for a great big fall. ;-) Cameron was in the positio of giving political advice. From the way Labour made such a fuss about it, you'd think Cameron had personally been running the UK's economic policy, taking all the decisions himself. This has been roundly denied by both Norman Lamont and John Major. The job of a Special Adviser is to give POLICY advice to a Secretary of State and/or Minister(s). I don't think Labour has ever accused Cameron of running the UK's economic policy at that time. But Cameron cannot deny knowledge of what was going on, and if he wasn't giving policy advice, he wasn't doing the job he was being paid for. |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote:
If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square. So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it? And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive. Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts. And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them. E. -- ms fnd in a lbry |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Jul 4, 7:55*pm, Eric wrote:
On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote: If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that cannot be a marriage. *A circle can never be a square. So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it? And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive. Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts. And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them. Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere. |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 02/07/2012 07:33, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 01/07/2012 17:13, e27002 wrote: On Jul 1, 10:11 am, Alex wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:44:19 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they ever get a next time). Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties, I doubt that they would. You hit that one on the head. The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates. While this may be true, you have to believe that people can change. The composition of the PLP has changed and will change even more if they win. But will it be for the better? -- Moving things in still pictures |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 03/07/2012 12:22, 77002 wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:32 pm, wrote: Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control Labour has, by now, a long record of opposing Tory reforms, in opposition, around the public sector and then failing to do a single thing about them when, or if, returned to office. They just play the political game. Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real radical changes of any consequence for years. Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is. Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight, never see being undone was civil partnerships. There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. I would have added to that list the commendable decision to create an independent BoE but as that particular piece of dysfunctional wazzock brain implementation continues to unravel by the day, to the point of needing a complete rebuild, the credit counter rather diminishes. That move in and of itself was good. It is pity the UK does not have people of the calibre needed to run an independent currency controlling bank. Perhaps labour would have done better by not nationalising the Bank of England in 1946? -- Moving things in still pictures |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/
On Jul 4, 4:05*pm, wrote:
In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:54:10PM -0500, wrote: In article , (Charles Ellson) wrote: Devolution (including the London Assembly & Mayor) That isn't devolution, that is a jumped-up county council. A bit more than that. It also controls a transport system carrying half the nation's passengers. That's pretty much *all* it is. *The mayor has no significant powers over anything else that people care about. *And I'm not sure what powers the assembly has at all. The mayor has rather more planning powers than any county council. The assembly is purely a scrutiny body. A bit like parliament. The whole concept is nonsense. Cities have mayors, not counties. The UK does not otherwise directly elect heads of authorities. UK voters elect party members; the leader of the party with most elected assembly members becomes head of the authority. The title clashes with Lord Mayer of (the City of) London. A smaller GLA would be better (Middlesex). I do not favor a Judge/ Chief Executive (As elected in Kentucky Counties). A board of supervizors like California and Nevada would be a little better. But, why not have a County Authority with extra powers? |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:55?pm, Eric wrote: On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote: If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that cannot be a marriage. ?A circle can never be a square. So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it? And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive. Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts. And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them. Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere. Yiddish insults now! Not even bad arguments any more. Often taken as a sign that someone has no arguments left and can hope only for the last word. But then we know what you are like, and I should really have known better than to speak to you at all. E. -- ms fnd in a lbry |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:51:58 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
wrote: In article , 77002 wrote: On Jul 4, 12:27*pm, Nick Leverton wrote: In article , 77002 wrote: On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote: On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote: On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. *One would expect that to be the norm. I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two or more people to be joined in union. One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over the age of consent. Including, of course, the man and the other man ... If there's another man then the marriage is usually over for practical purposes. |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 08:20:59 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 04/07/2012 06:41, Martin Edwards wrote: On 03/07/2012 12:22, 77002 wrote: thing about them when, or if, returned to office. They just play the political game. Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real radical changes of any consequence for years. Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is. Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight, never see being undone was civil partnerships. There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. We've nearly been through the card now. How about capital punishment, safety belts are dangerous and smoking is good for you? Whatever you do, don't mention global warming! Does anyone disagree that capital punishment is dangerous ? ;-) |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Jul 4, 10:36*pm, Eric wrote:
On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote: On Jul 4, 7:55?pm, Eric wrote: On 2012-07-04, e27002 wrote: If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that cannot be a marriage. ?A circle can never be a square. So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it? And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive. Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts. And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them. Sentiment mutual. *Take your left field mishigas elsewhere. Yiddish insults now! Not even bad arguments any more. Often taken as a sign that someone has no arguments left and can hope only for the last word. But then we know what you are like, and I should really have known better than to speak to you at all. You can dish it out but not take it? I do not expect you to share my beliefs. But, I am as entitled to hold them, as you yours. Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense? Let me try one more time: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Period". And, where were your "good" arguments? |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 04/07/2012 20:50, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 02/07/2012 07:33, Martin Edwards wrote: On 01/07/2012 17:13, e27002 wrote: On Jul 1, 10:11 am, Alex wrote: On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:44:19 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they ever get a next time). Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties, I doubt that they would. You hit that one on the head. The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates. While this may be true, you have to believe that people can change. The composition of the PLP has changed and will change even more if they win. But will it be for the better? I don't know. Like I said, one can only hope. Miliband is a former Harvard lecturer and the alumnus of a London comprehensive which, at least at the time, had a wide social mix. Cameron offers Eton, Oxford, public relations and Conservative Central Office. What has he done, really? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 04/07/2012 10:21, 77002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:51 am, wrote: On Jul 4, 7:42 am, Martin wrote: On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One would expect that to be the norm. Okay, but if you called it "fag marriage" some bright spark would crack a joke about cigarettes. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 05/07/2012 01:22, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:51:58 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton wrote: In , wrote: On Jul 4, 12:27 pm, Nick wrote: In , wrote: On Jul 4, 9:51 am, wrote: On Jul 4, 7:42 am, Martin wrote: On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One would expect that to be the norm. I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two or more people to be joined in union. One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over the age of consent. Including, of course, the man and the other man ... If there's another man then the marriage is usually over for practical purposes. Not if you are an Eskimo... -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 04/07/2012 18:42, e27002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:51 pm, Nick wrote: In , wrote: On Jul 4, 12:27 pm, Nick wrote: In , wrote: On Jul 4, 9:51 am, wrote: On Jul 4, 7:42 am, Martin wrote: On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote: In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say: There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside everyone's bedrooms? Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy? Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might be more popular amongst the political right? There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One would expect that to be the norm. I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two or more people to be joined in union. One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over the age of consent. Including, of course, the man and the other man ... If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square. While this is a valid etymological point, in this context it obfuscates the issue. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 04/07/2012 20:43, e27002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:55 pm, wrote: On 2012-07-04, wrote: If you have any knowledge of the English language, you will know that cannot be a marriage. A circle can never be a square. So if I disagree with you, I must therefore have no knowledge of the English language (which was not the subject of discussion). So not an honest or a defensible argument then, are you happy to use it? And no, a circle is not a square, but both are geometric figures formed by enclosing part of the plane with an unbroken line. Both are shapes that might be used in, say, the design of a steam locomotive. Dictionary definitions are not a valid basis for arguing about concepts. And we do not really want to know about your world view, beliefs, and opinions, much less have you expect that we should agree with them. Sentiment mutual. Take your left field mishigas elsewhere. Bist du Yid? -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 04/07/2012 20:53, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 03/07/2012 12:22, 77002 wrote: On Jul 2, 7:32 pm, wrote: Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control Labour has, by now, a long record of opposing Tory reforms, in opposition, around the public sector and then failing to do a single thing about them when, or if, returned to office. They just play the political game. Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real radical changes of any consequence for years. Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is. Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight, never see being undone was civil partnerships. There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy. I would have added to that list the commendable decision to create an independent BoE but as that particular piece of dysfunctional wazzock brain implementation continues to unravel by the day, to the point of needing a complete rebuild, the credit counter rather diminishes. That move in and of itself was good. It is pity the UK does not have people of the calibre needed to run an independent currency controlling bank. Perhaps labour would have done better by not nationalising the Bank of England in 1946? Which was cured by privatising it. No, wait............. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
On 05/07/2012 06:56, e27002 wrote:
Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense? Bingo! -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
e27002 wrote: your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense? Yeah , global warming is all a big conspiracy. Hows are the forest fires doing over there these days? Has the temp dropped under 100F yet? Let me try one more time: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Period". Marriage is whatever its defined to be by the society it exists in, not by some 2000 year old increasingly irrelevant book. B2003 |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
In article
, e27002 wrote: ... A circle can never be a square. I'm reminded of square sweets that look round, but of course that's irrelevant to the argument. Sam -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control- Guardian/Observer
In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote: On 05/07/2012 06:56, e27002 wrote: Your unpleasantness was not necessary. What makes you think we want your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense? Bingo! :-) Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Jul 5, 9:49*am, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:56:33 -0700 (PDT) e27002 wrote: your commie, homo hugging, global warming, baby killing nonsense? Yeah , global warming is all a big conspiracy. Hows are the forest fires doing over there these days? Has the temp dropped under 100F yet? Not too many fires on the south coast of England. We have had an awful amount of rain though. Al Gore is glad to have you on board his money making venture I am sure. Do check out the energy consumption of his mansion. Hint, the Hockey Stick graph to watch is the money supply. Let me try one more time: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Period". Marriage is whatever its defined to be by the society it exists in, not by some 2000 year old increasingly irrelevant book. Try as I might, I cannot think of one culture over the most recent 3,000 years that has defined marriage other than the accepted way. Now I will grant you that many have, and some do, allow a man to have several simultaneous marriages. Only one AFIK allows a woman to have several husbands. I will leave the feminazis to argue that one. Except to say one cannot imagine the tsuris more than one wife would bring. And, as for more than one mother-in-law, oivey. |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 04:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote: Try as I might, I cannot think of one culture over the most recent 3,000 years that has defined marriage other than the accepted way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions Not sure why it bothers you so much if 2 men or 2 women want to live together and have a legal document proving their connection. What no one seems to give a toss about and which I think is far more important is gay adoption. Many kids don't get a proper upbringing for whatever reason but if the state has a choice of who to give a child to then its IMO beholden to put them in a normal family - ie man & women. A child needs a mother and a father, not 2 of one and zero of the other. Gay adopters should be a last resort if there is simply nowhere else for the child to go. The childs rights are paramount, the couples rights are irrelevant. Except to say one cannot imagine the tsuris more than one wife would bring. And, as for more than one mother-in-law, oivey. You might want to ditch the faux jewish nonsense. B2003 |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Jul 5, 12:45*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 04:08:23 -0700 (PDT) 77002 wrote: Try as I might, I cannot think of one culture over the most recent 3,000 years that has defined marriage other than the accepted way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions Thank you. Not sure why it bothers you so much if 2 men or 2 women want to live together and have a legal document proving their connection. Living together? That is their affair. Just keep it out of my face. Marriage? That bothers me because it is one more devaluation of our culture. It reduces the value and status of marriage. What no one seems to give a toss about and which I think is far more important is gay adoption. Many kids don't get a proper upbringing for whatever reason but if the state has a choice of who to give a child to then its IMO beholden to put them in a normal family - ie man & women. A child needs a mother and a father, not 2 of one and zero of the other. Gay adopters should be a last resort if there is simply nowhere else for the child to go. The childs rights are paramount, the couples rights are irrelevant. We are in agreement on this one. Except to say one cannot imagine the tsuris more than one wife would bring. *And, as for more than one mother-in-law, oivey. You might want to ditch the faux jewish nonsense. Faux? I do not speak Yidish (and very, very little Hebrew). I have been in Synagogue, and in other's homes, enough to know the more common Yidish expressions. Frankly I like them because they are so expressive. |
Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control - Guardian/Observer
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 06:41:54AM +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
We've nearly been through the card now. How about capital punishment, safety belts are dangerous and smoking is good for you? If it helps, my dad recently had a heart attack while playing squash. He wasn't smoking at the time. This *PROVES* that smoking prevents heart attacks, and that exercise is bad for you. -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information The Law of Daves: in any gathering of technical people, the number of Daves will be greater than the number of women. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk