Displaying 61 To 90 Of 416 Comments “Populist Republican” is an Oxymoron Are all Conservative Dems Blue Dogs? That is, do you only have to be a Conservative Dem to qualify as a Blue Dog, or are there other things you have to be? Watch this space, I bet boomer cracks a joke… » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 3:59 pm Watch the caps, boomer. :] » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 3:43 pm KQ: this is a very thoughtful article, I was especially interested in the part about the Conservative Dems and at least some progressives and how deluded both seem to be about what will work for 2010 and 2012. Here is something you say: Conservative Democrats are under the false impression that if they just act like Republicans they will win more conservative constituents over. I believe this is called dissembling. Pretending to be something you are not, or re: Collins English Dictionary: ‘Concealing one’s real motives or emotions by pretence’. For a wider purpose; here, to gain votes. I just hate this kind of thing, for its dishonesty and because it is so self-serving. » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 3:18 pm LOL !! What a happy little post. A smiley and nothing more besides. I used to do that at hp, and sometimes the mawds (look at that, ‘mawds’, I still think I’m in word-filter country) would put it through and sometimes they wouldn’t. Anyway, I like your post. I like to see a person smile. :] » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 11:50 am In my view, it would be easier to judge whether freedom is overrated, in a situation where we are not free than in a situation where we are. A prisoner, for example, would be better able to decide the worth of freedom, provided he had had it at some time. Having it before, but not having it now, is what enables him to make a good comparison rather than just some dreamy, hypothetical one. Incarceration is the contrast he needs to see the worth of freedom. This doesn’t mean that you can’t make any judgements about freedom at all, in an atmosphere of freedom. You can. You can point to some individual freedom you have, like being on this site right now and being able to speak freely in a post, and then say of it, “It’s ok, I suppose. But overrated. I mean it’s not the Third Heaven or anything like that.” But would you ever go on to say anything like this? “I’d be just as happy, possibly even happier, in a country where what I say when I blog, is monitored, where I can never say anything against the ruling political party, or anything about religion, we can’t even mention religion—not that I care because I hate religion anyway—, in a country where, to be honest, we can’t say much of anything at all on a blog, there are that many blasted rules. In fact now that I think about it, it’s like trying to blog in a dictatorship! Eff this!!!” Yes, you would, if, like the prisoner, you’d had it better before. :] » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 6:34 pm I suggest nothing beyond what I have said. If there are too many questions you can get some answers by Googling some of these topics, as I do, as we all do sometimes. As for our laws, yes, they are pretty lax. Have you ever lived in the UK? I mean in the past 5 years or so. » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 1:29 pm Oh, that. Boy do I ever feel dumb. I forgot about going to the bottom of the page, how you can do that on Word. I am so used to being at hp… Thanks. » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 12:57 pm Adlib:I don’t know how to start a new comment. You don’t mean do a new article, I am pretty sure…where do we start a new thread for comment? Without doing a new article? I agree with most of what you say. However, over here at Belmarsh where they keep some of the most dangeorus terrorists, they are given computers and they get to write frantic letters to the EU Commission on Human Rights and talk about their ill-treatment. This after blowing up a bus, with kids on it. I can’t bear this. As for battering prisoners…I think you used that phrase in one of your comments? if not, my mistake… I don’t believe in that. I think Jan is right that this would make a good topic for an article but I suspect the thread would be a hot one. For now, I don’t think Christians should be treated better than Muslims all because they are in a Christian country; here I am talking about Christians who, like some Muslims, might be in prison. (I still can’t get used to being able to type some of these words I’ve used, here and in other posts, freely, without having to disguise them for a word-filter. Like ‘Muslim’, ‘death’, ‘Catholic;’, etc. I hope I get used to it soon, because it’s lovely to be able to just…speak. Thank you.) abby » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 12:32 pm Adlib: I am over here at the Help Desk just for the reply space: the reply tabs on the thread on which you just commented, the comment being on the subtopic of the prayer rug, are blocked out. So I can’t reply there. Should a Christian have his cross taken away, you ask, if a Muslim can have his prayer rug taken away. My view is that no matter what the religion is, if a person is wanting to commit acts of terror and is using his religion as a springboard for that, then he should perhaps be limited in the practice of his religion until he learns that religion is not meant to be a springboard for any such thing. Whether I’d go as far as taking a prayer rug away, or a cross, I don’t think so. I don’t know what the limitations would consist of, who would decide them, whether they’d be fair… or not fair but a violation of his right to worship as he pleases. It’s all quite complex. But no one should get to use their religion…any religion… as a springboard to commit acts of terror. And jan, I never said in any post that I agreed with taking the prayer rug away, please read those posts again. I said that over here it would not be taken away, and why. If my use of ‘coddle’ made you think I want them to take his rug away, that is unfortunate. Best to ask someone what they mean by a word or phrase, or by the use of a word or phrase, than to just assume you know. I’ve had to learn that myself. » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 11:31 am jan: sorry but it is not a right-wing meme. The fact that right-wingers sometimes use the word ‘coddle’ does not make the concept itself a right-wing one. Plus I never said he should have his rug taken away… or that he shouldn’t. I don’t know;I can’t decide and when I do I will need more reply space than I have here to explain my position… » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 11:09 am Over here they get their prayer rugs because of the EU Human Rights thing. They get all kinds of things, on human rights. David Cameron wants to opt out of the EU one and do our own Bill of Rights, like America has, because the EU one is so-wide-ranging it virtually coddles people. Which people? Somehow always the victimizer and never the victim. » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 9:15 am “…I remember a line from the movie, » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 8:57 am It’s difficult. As you suggest, you don’t want to multiply entities beyond what is needed to explain something…or, here, multiply suspects beyond what is needed to make sense of this matter… but on the other hand, you don’t want naivety to take over and as a result let some creep off the hook who should be ON the hook. What is needed here is some kind of machine, like the ones they want to install in airports: body scanners. We need brain scanners…wait, we have those already. Soul scanners? CIA agents that don’t have personal agendas? Or just some really good dogs. Like the kind they use on drug raids. We need dogs that can detect MOTIVE the way some dogs can detect crack. Get working on it, Khirad. » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 12:17 am Thank God you’re here. :] » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 8:19 pm Hi javaz. I have just surfaced from lots of reading…for the big vote. Lots and lots of articles. It’s quiet here this time of day, I am baking bread here in the kitchen and keeping one eye on that, one eye on the thickening snowclouds outside, and one on my pc…but wait, I dont have three eyes. No wonder I am having problems! » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 6:39 am ‘Morning, javaz. » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 5:20 am Bernard: thank you for encouraging me to not give in to cynicism. You are right of course. I just had a few surprises, that’s all, during the primaries. I suppose I am not REALLY a cynic, idealism runs in my veins like fire, but opportunism does exist and it’s an awful thing. :[ » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 1:45 am I did not know that, Pepe. I mean about your minor being English Lit. What was your major, may I ask? » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 1:39 am Thanks, Khirad. My chief interest is really English Lit and Phil of Religion. I am reading both (over in America the words would be ‘I am studying both’) at university over here. I don’t know if I could bear to write on British politics, or on any politics. I am just learning about politics (btw, much of what I have learned, about how politics works and about individual politicians in America, I have learned from you guys, from your posts both at hp and here) and already my idealism has taken a beating: I have become a little cynic. Some of what goes on, or seems to go on, in politics anywhere, breaks my heart. » Posted By abby4ever On January 5, 2010 @ 12:02 am Oh, I am considering it all right! The thing is, if one party uses scaremongering as a method to control the public’s thoughts, and votes, what is there to stop either (1) the other party from doing the same, or (2) people accusing the other party of doing the same, this whether the other party is doing the same, or not. The answer to (1) is: ‘Integrity.’ Sadly, the answer to (2) is: ‘Nothing’. The sh*t will be flying soon, a more elegant name for it would be something like The Great Accusation Race. I’d like to add something to something I said in my longer post. In case anyone here might think that I have no evidence for saying that these New Labour terror raids always seem to happen when either (a) New Labour is under fire for something else and wants to distract the public’s attention from that something else, or (b) when support for New Labour’s war on terror is lagging, I do have this much. Whenever these raids have occured, newspaper reporters from outlets such as SKY, ITV and the BBC, are on the scene BEFORE the raid vans arrive. That means they were told ahead of time about the impending raids and subsequently would have their cameras set up when the vans arrive (usually with flashing lights and men in strange gear streaming out the back of them at high speed). If the concern is our security only, by foiling some plot in the making, why bother alerting the media like that, PRIOR TO the raid taking place? That’s not hard to answer: New Labour wants those images, of itself fighting terror, all over the 6 o’ clock nightly news, Newsnight, the Sunday morning talk shows, and in all the newspapers too. I believe these raids are more stunts to sway the public than anything else, or at least that they are as MUCH stunts to sway the public as they are genuine attempts to make us safer over here. » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 11:12 pm Emerald! What a fine (but startling, especially when you read it just waking up) article. A necessary one, too: this needs to be explored… to the deepest depths. I am still digesting it, but for now, this. You say: “… the most disturbing scenario is that it could have been either for » Posted By abby4ever On January 4, 2010 @ 10:45 pm To KQ: Wiki does some great background, both conceptual and historical, on this show as well as some amusing synopses on the actors/ characters, here’s an excerpt: FATHER DOUGAL MCGUIRE:(Ardal O’Hanlona) very simple-minded soul, in exile for the mysterious “Blackrock incident”, involving a Sealink ferry and a group of nuns whose lives were, allegedly, “irreparably damaged”, presumably caused by his stupidity. His inability to grasp the simplest of everyday concepts provides much of the humour in the show. Dougal’s denseness frequently infuriates and exasperates Ted, as well as get him into trouble. It is unclear exactly how and why Dougal ended up in the priesthood. Dougal also regularly expresses doubts about the validity of Catholic Orthodoxy (indeed, he appears to have no religious belief whatsoever, even questioning the existence of God in front of a visiting Bishop, who eventually gives up the faith and becomes a hippie) and has trouble distinguishing dreams from reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Ted The entries on background, etc., seem (for once) accurate and you might find it worth your while and amusing to take a look (if you haven’t already). abby » Posted By abby4ever On January 8, 2010 @ 1:28 am Nellie: If you are here, did you get that Guardian link you asked me about? I posted it for you several hours ago (it took a while to track it down) plus, in the same post, two other links from the Guardian to articles I thought you might like to see. Just want to be sure you got it. abby » Posted By abby4ever On January 6, 2010 @ 10:12 pm Has anyone seen Nellie in the last half hour? I just want to know if she got that info I posted for her. » Posted By abby4ever On January 6, 2010 @ 2:18 pm bitohistory: we can see my sister’s house in Sarasota, using Google Earth. Overhead, satellite view, of course. We can see the tiny houses and, like you say, ‘toy cars’, and little trees and things. You can click on a map, too, to get driving instructions to get to that address, (even if you live in Canada) and that’s the part that puzzles me: do people know that Google provides these driving instruction maps? My sister didn’t. Jeez, Jack the Ripper could use Google Earth…to go right to your house. I don’t understand how they get to provide that kind of thing. » Posted By abby4ever On January 6, 2010 @ 2:01 pm boomer!!! It’s about time you got here! :] » Posted By abby4ever On January 6, 2010 @ 1:46 pm bitohistory: Oh I know you weren’t prying! I get embarrassed when people ask me things and I can’t tell them, but a promise is a promise and I promised my husband. I fight with him about it sometimes… a few people have given me their home phone number to ring them if I want, or asked for mine, but noooooooo, I can’t. Don’t get me wrong: he isn’t the bossy type…about anything but this kind of thing. Anyway, I wasn’t even suggesting that you were prying. Cheers. » Posted By abby4ever On January 6, 2010 @ 1:37 pm ATTENTION NELLIE: God, I didn’t think I was EVER going to find it. Here it is, it was on Escribacat’s ‘It’s Not Just The Politics’ thread abby4ever says: » Posted By abby4ever On January 6, 2010 @ 1:21 pm Nellie: Just give me a moment…hang on one second.. » Posted By abby4ever On January 6, 2010 @ 1:00 pm to bitohistory: A webcam? What for? As to where we live, I’ll never tell…except to say we live in the London area. But we are not there right now; we are up north near Gretna. (See a post I did earlier on the ‘Ms Hoff Speaks’ thread in Speaker’s Corner for what it’s like up here right now, (it’s lovely) though it should have been on the ‘Time Out For OT’ thread). My husband will never let me give out exact details on the internet, it’s a promise I made him after that fiasco last year with some crazed troll getting some personal details of an hp poster and then, according to this poster anyway, crashing her website, long story). Not calling you a troll of course but anyway that’s how things are in our house. No addresses (not even aprox. geographical locations) phone numbers, the name of my university, etc. are to be given out on the internet on orders from hubby. Sorry. Were you thinking of getting pictures of the birth or something? LOL !!! Or did you want to send ME some images? I am not entirely sure what a webcam does… » Posted By abby4ever On January 6, 2010 @ 12:53 pmComments Posted By abby4ever
I’ve heard that sometimes when these Muslim extremists pray, they rant, and talk about death to Westeners and infidels. That might be untrue. If it is true, for all I know some Catholic extremist is, even as we speak, doing virtually the same thing while saying his rosary! I.e. ‘Death to all Protestants!’ or something like that.
___________________________________________
01/03/2010 at 10:57 PM
From the Guardian, April 6 2009:
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats