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

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?

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

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.

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 ? ;-)

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?

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

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

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

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