Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

so fred, did i answer the question you intended to ask?

cynic you have never answered any question you avoid facts

off to cost del sol soon for a nice break

Has anyone read the book Of mice and men. :-))

Tanker - All religions have the potential for evil but also the potential to do great good... The problem occurs when conflict in the 'name' of religion occurs. To say all religions are evil suggests that you don't hold any faith. Surely you must if not for yourself but a loved one.

i didn't ask you or for your opinion (on anything) ...... and assuredly fred has a tongue of his own

Manuel,

Aren't you ducking one of the questions.

Part of the problems of the ME. could be thought as primitive tribal interpretation of various religions and the belief in the superiority of their "cultures" at the expense of those of "others".

The ends which are wished to be obtained have very little difference at the end of the day (supremacy of one over another, or sometimes a rejection of such positioning).

The ways of obtaining such goals are played out in different ways but really they are similar.
Instigation of fear by killing and maiming, whether from a plane 5000 feet in sky, bombing and maiming indiscriminately etc, or a suicide bomber blowing themselves up dismembering and destroying human life for his cause.

The wounded, maimed, injured or dead and their families have similar feelings.

Religion is not the problem, the problem is the abuse of religion!

not intentionally ducking anything, but nor has the palestinian question really anything to do with judaism

it is however a fact that certain jewish sects think that israel (for convenience) is "their" promised land
one could certainly reasonably argue that the creeping annexation of gaza is just greed hiding under a facade of religion
if that land had oil reserves, it would be easier to explain but patently it does not!

whatever the reason, my personal view is that the current israeli action is disgusting almost beyond words ...... though nor do i take the view that gaza "belongs" as of right to the palestinians/arabs either!

Cameron is a confident man!

Debating is not his problem. It is the manner of the debate which matters.

Cameron means that he wants Farage, Miliband and Clegg manacled and gagged before he will consider the debates.


I wonder if Wee Alec can represent the SNP.

Should be fun!


PS. as Boris is forming his ow party can he take part as well.

What party is Boris forming Fred?!

There's no point in Salmond representing the SNP when he has resigned as First Minister.

Parliament channel now showing the Palestinian debate to be followed by a vote.

DB4.

The "I LOVE MYSELF PARTY".

Egocentric and self-fulfilling!

This is Haystack's hero, lying his way out of a referendum.

Nothing to do with the Lib/Dims.

You cant trust a word that comes out of Cameroon's mouth when it comes to the €U.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1JReyGsdOA

You obviously don't know the history of the referendum. Cameron did promise a referendum. It was about what was being agreed in the Lisbon Treaty. In the event the Labour party not only signed the treaty, but deliberately gave away our veto to stop future governments changing it.

Because of what Labour did, we have no scope to change or not accept EU legislation. The Conservatives removed the promise for a referendum from their manifesto for 2010. There was no point in having a referendum as we could not veto the Lisbon treaty by then.

This new referendum is very different. It will be about IN or OUT.

The party that lied about a referendum was Labour. There were negotiations leading to a treaty called the Maastricht treaty. In the event Ireland voted against it in their referendum. Some other countries were likely to vote against it. Labour had promised us a vote as well. The treaty collapsed. A new treaty was thought up and called the Lisbon Treaty. It was about 95% the same as the old one. Ireland revoted and agreed to it. Labour then changed their mind and reneged on their promise. They used the excuse that they only promised a referendum for the Maastricht treaty and the Lisbon treaty was a different treaty and they were not bound by their promise.

You mean that Blair was as duplicitous as Cameron is!

Wonders never cease!

To me the reason for a Boris (Il Duce) safe seat election is so that he can be moved into a front bench position .....he's very good for London....I'd prefer him remaining mayor....and I agree with his longterm estuary airport....in the meantime another runway at Gatwick is probably the best solution...but in a few decades the Heathrow switch to the estuary will become a must.....

Cameroon has stated that he wants to stay in regardless of any outcome on renegotiation.

With an opening position like that, who needs a cast iron guarantee?

Indeed, the only outcome possible is more of the same.


Something else smelly under the €U matress:

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/09/12/comment-outrage-as-eu-blocks-democratic-challenge-to-us-trad


I'm sure Dave is relaxed about that as well.

Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie
Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie Shortie