Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm still pushing for a Southern Hemisphere "World Cup" like the European Cup for football
European Nations' Cup, I think you mean, no?
The European Cup of blessed memory is a club competition forever and ever amen.
(Differences: run yearly vs quadrennially, home and way vs neutral, etc.)
-
So, in other words, they disagree with you, so they are lying nasty people? Yeh.
-
Let alone any effort to explain the compromise and why they made it.
You are kidding right? If I had a penny every time some Labour type has said `now we support that in principle but the money just isn't there' then I'd be able to fund half these damn programs.
The problem with the Parliamentary Labour Party isn't that they want bad things; it's that they are going about good things the wrong way.
-
Hang on, they do some things that help, but not enough, therefore they are happy to see inequality increase?
Well, no. I'd even accept: they are willing to let inequality increase in exchange for increased economic growth, etc. But `happy for inequality to increase'? Yeah. No.
(And the attendant social ills? I mean, really, wtf, you think Labour are keen on bad things that cost money? Also, do you remember the first thing Labour did to the tax rates at the start of this government?)
Also, from the Dimpost & generally applicable
Ramsey McDonald who said he became a democratic socialist after he realised that the workers didn’t want a revolution, they just wanted a decent salary and a good life for their kids
Well, he kind of failed spectacularly at that didn't he? There may be a lesson in it; after all, nobody wants to end up a bloody tragedy.
-
no, not really. I/S thinks Labour's quite happy to see inequality and the negative effects of that increase based on the certain facts. I do not think his facts support his conclusion.
-
in that case why make claims about the mental state of actors you haven't got a clue about?
(And, er, you have premises and then you draw conclusions that aren't warranted, of course it is about the damn premises; either that or the logic you are using.)
-
It's a prerequisite for taking executive power. I guarantee he won't change jack shit and by the end of his last term he'll be as hated and compromised as every other president.
Oh, go and play with Ralph Nader would you? Elections matter.
(In fact, Obama has changed things; look at the stimulus, look at health care reform, etc. Also note that it is the Senate that's the roadblock to change at the moment.)
Also: the bullshit false dichotomy between economic and social leftism is, of course, bullshit: we can have both, and in fact I think have to go together. I think that the left should be running on economics at the moment, because when there's a global economic crisis caused and prolonged by mad right-wing policies, I think there's one really obvious case to be made, but that isn't to say we should throw the rest under the bus.
In other words, they're happy to see inequality - and all its resulting social ills - increase.
No, this does not follow from the premises.
-
and a school district that wouldn't show the Obama speech -- didn't want to disrupt planned lessons -- but bussed students to see a Bush jr. speech.
-
From Paul Graham:
But in at least some cases the reason the nerds don't fit in really is that everyone else is crazy.
s/b: Fans are slans! Fans are slans! Fans are slans!
-
Combines the proportionality of MMP with a simple means for the voters to write the party list.
Wouldn't it just put in candidates who ran in marginals?
Which isn't really very useful.
Admittedly I think all these attempts to muck around with the internal workings of political parties are daft: if you want a say in the National or the Labour or the Green list, you can join the party. If you won't join, then I see no reason why they should be forced to listen to you.
In particular, why should we be able to keep out Roger Douglas? He's clearly the kind of guy Act voters want in parliament, and maybe the rest of us disagree, but so?