I lived for 3 years in the UK and the Telegraph is one of the most conservative papers in the UK. It still is considered as the Tory parties in-house journal. The current owner (at least for the moment) is Conrad Black of whom the Financial Times of London said that 'Black was a more effective as a conservative political advocate than a businessman.' Granted, that by US standards the Telegraph would not be particularly right wing, but by the re
Gerry Atrick
Heres one I liked: A turtle left a bar and was walking down an alley in New York when he was mugged by a gang of snails. A police detective came to investigate and asked the turtle if he could explain what happened. The turtle looked at the detective with a confused look on his face and replied "I don't know, it all happened so fast." All right Shulamite, I confess, I put the bit about the bar in myself ...... just so it could be clas
I just thought of something that blows my great theory above out of the water.....all thos guys who flew airliners into the WTC were a long way from the disaffected, poor I talk about. Didnt they come from well off or middle class families? Oh well, another good sounding theory down the drain.....I still think there is something to it though.
I think envy certainly has a part to play but is not the entire reason. I feel there are two types of terrorist in any organisation. For want of better labels, lets call them leaders and the followers. The leaders are the ruthless ones with their own agendas, they want the power and are prepared to do whatever is necessary to get it. But the leaders need the foot soldiers, people prepared to fight and die for their cause. The followers are usually
some interesting thoughts, unfortunately we live in a world wher the 15 second sound byte is king. It is usually easier to squeeze the accusation into this time than the defense.
My whole week has been like this! In my case I think it's lack of sleep.....I'm awake at 4.00 every morning and cant get back to sleep....yesterday I would start a job and forget where I was in the middle of it......just as well my boss wasnt around........gotta get more sleep!
Angloesque, I dont think it will....if I am right and the closer a person is to the centre the more rational (less emotional) they are. The parties do not want to ignore these people as they know they can swing an election. If the parties make the ads too emotional they risk alienating these voters. The parties have to judge their ads so that they have enough emotion to keep those who lean their way but also put in enough policy to try and capture that
It would be interesting to know where people fell on the democrat - republican scale before the study compared with how emotional were their responses. I feel (and it is only a feeling) that the further you are at either end of the scale the more emotional and less rational people become. The closer you are to the middle the more you are prepared to listen to rational argument. Maybe this is because the more your own ideology agrees with one side or th
crazy lady, My congratulations.....this is the first time (on my relatively short time on this website) that I have seen anyone change views based on the logic of someone elses argument. Normally both sides snipe at each other from their respective trenches. You seem to be truly open minded.....that is something of great value. In your last reply you say 'maybe the Iraqi people should learn a lesson from them. ' One thing we should consid
I admire someone that is so sure of their faith. Personally I have too many doubts about Christianity to be a true believer myself (I wrote a post on this a few days back.) When I talk to devout Christians like yourself I am envious, their faith is an anchor for them and something to hang on to particularly when things are not going so well. Even if I don't personally subscribe to your belief system it does not mean that I should not appreciate how rea
Quite simply it buys you cooperation and it is only through international cooperation that the war on terror will be won. For most of the countries (besides Britain) that you mention supporting the US in Iraq their numbers on the ground are (to use your own term) miniscule but even so, for most of them their governments are in trouble at home because of their support. Blair is under huge pressure and if an election was held today would not survive, we
'I believe we, as a society, do have a moral responsibility to help our fellow man. I just don't believe it is the job of the federal government to do that.' In a perfect world you are correct but we see time and again the two forces most effective at driving man are greed and fear. Believe it or not there are corporations out there (and this is in every country) that will exploit employees and while this is the case we need some for
NickyG, You sound like one sick, but well balanced, dude!
This test was more fun: Here is how you matched up against all the levels: (Click on a level for more info) Level Who are sent there? Score Purgatory Repenting Believers Very Low Level 1 - Limbo Virtuous Non-Believers Low Level 2 Lustful Very High Level 3 Gluttonous Low Level 4 Prodigal and Avaricious Very Low Level 5 Wrathful and Gloomy High Level 6 - The City of Dis Heretics Very
"The difference is that the government shouldn't forcibly keep some people from speaking and not others." Agreed, but your proposal gives the loudest voice to those who have the most money, and large corporations with vested interest in (for example) energy policy could really shape an election purely in their favour.
Brad, Even though I disagree with most of what you write, I am in awe of the sheer volume and quality of the writing. You always seem to argue your point of view without resorting to abuse when people disagree with you. I do have one question though....where do you find the time?
Cut out private funding altogether. Give the candidates the same amount of money and let them compete on a level playing field on equal terms.
Deference, you are spot on with your assessment.