You respond to nearly all my posts, but you refuse to answer these specific questions. Why?
Is the US systemically racist?
Why are black people in the US poorer, policed more, and jailed more than white people? Is it due to systemic racism, or is it because black people are inclined to make more "shit choices" than white people?
Why was property damage that happened around the '60s civil rights protests acceptable if property damage that happens around BLM protests isn't?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka
You are everything you accuse others of being. It's known as the rubber/glue science.
Yeah, defend Tommy Robinson some more, fruitcake.
I don't have to. The accusers have to. So far, they haven't used evidence though.
I haven't seen anything from him in a few years. If you want to bring something up, do go on.
As to your questions, I will continue to give them all the respect they deserve.
You say you won't answer these questions because they don't deserve respect, but you respond to all my other posts. Does this mean that all my other posts deserve respect? Or perhaps you're just making excuses...
Is the US systemically racist?
Why are black people in the US poorer, policed more, and jailed more than white people? Is it due to systemic racism, or is it because black people are inclined to make more "shit choices" than white people?
Why was property damage that happened around the '60s civil rights protests acceptable if property damage that happens around BLM protests isn't?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka
Is this going to be your new, catchy expression for the next week or four? Dropping blue-anon already, or are you planning to run both simultaneously for a while?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Marina Hyde wrote:No matter what the prime minister does, no matter the consequences, his devotees line up to heatedly excuse it
Last night’s Downing Street coronavirus briefing was given by Matt Hancock, now identifiable only by his dental records. According to Dominic Cummings, Hancock was a serial liar at a deadly level who should have been sacked 15 or 20 times. According to himself, Matt Hancock “threw a ring around care homes”. It would have been a lot better if he’d thrown the ring into Mount Doom instead.
Elsewhere, it has emerged that a government that came to power promising to control our borders has allowed 1.59 million – ONE POINT FIVE NINE MILLION – travellers to fly into the UK in the four lockdown months from January to April alone, two-thirds of whom were not UK nationals. If we don’t open up fully in three weeks, make sure to thank the Conservatives by popping a couple more points on their poll ratings.
So yes: you’ve heard a lot of denials over the past 24 hours. But the biggest UK repository of denial remains the polls, where no revelation of incompetence or failure impacts other than positively for the government. A midweek poll saw the Conservatives climb six points, to 44%, which feels about perfect for a country where at that moment Cummings was claiming industrial levels of lying, incompetence and contempt for elderly and vulnerable people, and spiking it all with such details as Boris Johnson wanting Chris Whitty to inject him with the virus live on TV. Remember, even Donald Trump at his maddest only wanted other people to inject the disinfectant.
PM says national flagship, a successor to the Royal Yacht Britannia, would promote British trade and industry around the world
A new national flagship, the successor to the Royal Yacht Britannia, will promote British trade and industry around the world, Boris Johnson has said.
The vessel would be used to host trade fairs, ministerial summits and diplomatic talks as the UK seeks to build links and boost exports following Brexit. It would be the first national flagship since Britannia, which was decommissioned in 1997, but the new vessel would be a ship rather than a luxury yacht.
The delusion:
Johnson said: “This new national flagship will be the first vessel of its kind in the world, reflecting the UK’s burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation.”
£200m would pay for 1000 junior nursing posts for the next 10 years. We also know that by the time the boat is finished it will have cost a lot more than that
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here. .
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
The vessel would be used to host trade fairs, ministerial summits and diplomatic talks as the UK seeks to build links and boost exports following Brexit. It would be the first national flagship since Britannia, which was decommissioned in 1997, but the new vessel would be a ship rather than a luxury yacht.
The delusion:
Johnson said: “This new national flagship will be the first vessel of its kind in the world, reflecting the UK’s burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation.”
Campaigners concerned by controversial plans for tribunals where firms can seek compensation for effect of government policies
A free trade deal between the UK and Australia is on course to include a controversial system of secret courts that will allow businesses to seek compensation if their profits are hit by government policies.
In a move that has alarmed trade unions and anti-poverty campaigners, trade minister Greg Hands said UK negotiators were in talks with Australian officials over proposals to include a scheme that will arbitrate on disputes behind closed doors.
It is understood that the UK plans to announce the framework for a trade deal with Australia before the G7 summit begins on 11 June, after prime minister Boris Johnson invited his Australian counterpart, Scott Morrison, to the event in Cornwall.
Trade secretary Liz Truss said last week that a deal would be in the best interests of the UK economy and its exporters would benefit from unfettered access to Australian markets.
Until now the most controversial element of the proposed deal has been a plan to scrap tariffs and quotas on Australian agricultural products, including sheep and beef coming into the UK, undercutting British farmers.
It's amazing that UK and Australian beef producers compete at all really, right?
The latest fad is a poverty social. Every woman must wear calico,
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
