Saintandy666

Because being black is irrelevant and not something you can change. Someone isn't a bastard(if we use the 'nasty person' meaning of the term) because they are black. They are a bad person because of environmental factors.

You could clearly notice yes... and some nasty comments were made at times, but kids are dicks.

He didn't decide though, he had a skin condition and the condition does exist, I went to school with someone who had it... though she wasn't black.

Well, 'black bastard' makes it sound like you are saying they are a bastard because they are black. To be honest, it all depends on the context. Like, I have banter with my friends which could be considered homophobic or racist, we all do if I just shouted it at someone in the street... but because we are all friends and give as good as we get, it's not offensive. I really think the intent is important. There's not space for that kind of joking in public life though. Racism is abhorrent and dumb.

Even though as insults, they are pretty ****... most people can help being fat, and simply eat too much and I do think they need to at least be informed they are fat because of the damage it does to their health. Being a certain skin colour is totally different because you can't suddenly decide to have white skin or black skin one day. I just think we need to start thinking that we are all PEOPLE, rather than dividing us up by what geographical area of land we come from or what our skin colour is.

It worries me who Kim Jong-un actually is. His father was an absolute tyrant and evil man, but he always stopped short of raising the confrontations too far, more posture at times than action. Hopefully the new guy starts to reform a bit(as if!), so the people of North Korea can break free from the Kim family's iron grip.

I work on Sundays so couldn't go or watch it.

Ken Clarke would be good as Tory leader.

He's very charming and funny(makes a great speech!), but it's all an act. He's extremely clever and has a lust for power. I wouldn't trust him and his buffoon front hides extremely right wing politic.

Don't know why we have already said we won't sign up. Should have joined the talks, not just as an observer and then refused to sign once there is an actual draft treaty.

It's still on budget at £9.3bn I believe

A war with Iran is a war where I fear it'd be hard to remain neutral for too long. The consequences for everyone would be too large.

It wasn't the original reason we invaded, it was a sort of sub reason to back it up. Though, I say just because you can't do anything in all cases, why not do it when you can..... And when vast strategic oil reserves are at stake! Double win!!!!! Quite clearly sarcasm, but I think we were right to go into Libya on balance. Afghanistan has no oil.

Oh, I agree, they can bomb the actual camps and what not... there is a role for that(which is why I am more inclined to support afghanistan as the Taleban were unwilling to take down the camps themselves and hand over the perpetrators of 9/11), but ideas are bulletproof... dialogue is absolutely key. Al Qaeda is more of an ideology these days rather than any one group, anyone can be a member.

I always thought Afghanistan was about destroying Al Qaeda as an actual structural entity.

I guess the only thing we can look at is what have we achieved: Well, we got rid of a very bad evil man responsible for genocide of his own people, that's a plus. So prevention of loss of life and other atrocities. We gave the Iraqis a new chance post war, that's a plus. But what are the downsides: Years of civil war. Loss of life was huge. Loss of trust worldwide. Cost. Creation of extremism maybe, there were some interesting Iraqi opinion surveys on this kind of stuff a couple of years back. They were reasonably positive though the situation has probably deteriorated since then. A stronger Iran within the region because no Iraq to counteract it.

A classic.

You can't bail out the planet, once it's ****ed up, it's ****ed up.

That was deliberate though. The third way don't mind people getting filthy rich and big business as long as they are taxed well to fund big public services and also that the poors living standards also raise, even if not as much. It's Anthony Crosland who first bought that(well, started the change) to socialism with managerialism.

Pilchards was always pretty reliable. He wouldn't lie, though the originating source may be wrong.

Conservatism is an elistist ideology... that is fact. It is based around keeping the ruling class in its place and the lower classes in theirs too. Not that the conservative party are actually conservative of course, though they are closest we have to it. I am more post-modernist... there is no one mantra to explain the world.

Continental Europe has a different kind of conservatism to us though. So called Christian Democracy conservatism which involves intermediates and co-operation as opposed to our one nation conservatism which is more centred on fooling the poor from uprising.

I agree Cameron had little choice come the summit because Sarkozy/Merkel told him to do one, but if he'd been building alliances the last few months rather than mouthing off that result would have been different.

Fair enough

It isn't snowing where I live. Just very windy and very cold.