LordJim

Registered bored user

LordJim wrote:
So will he keep it? What would he call [email protected] My vote would be for "Soggy".
LordJim wrote:
Gerry1of1 That was the theory behind it. Mr Guillotine was in fact opposed to the death penalty but supported this new invention ( not his ) because it was more humane than strangle-hanging. He hated that his name was associated with it.

Personally I think a bullet in the back of the head is the most humane. But I am not an expert.
LordJim wrote:
megrendel I'm sure it doesn't help.
LordJim wrote:
squrlz4ever That was self-depracating humour. Yes, I am sarcastic; it's cultural. But that particular sarcasm was aimed at myself.

I think you are being a wee bit over-sensitive recently. Maybe I need a support group;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN4QS8nL6bY
LordJim wrote:
woodyville06 I seem to remember that one of the last to be executed in this way - a serial killer - was very excited at the idea that he would hear his own blood gush from his neck.
LordJim wrote:
squrlz4ever Really? A lot? I just reviwed my last 25 comments and only two were even slightly grumpy. So 92% un-grumpy.

As for Gerry and economics, he has frequently stated that he knows sod all about it. It wasn't even meant to be that grumpy.

If it gets to be a problem let me know; it may be a heads up that Black Dog is sniffing around again.
LordJim wrote:
Gerry1of1 It seems post-decapitation conciouness was a thing.
LordJim wrote:
madduck Well, we still haem in zoos. So...
LordJim wrote:
Gerry1of1 They don't want to kick your butts. Why would they? Everything is working out fine for them.                       
LordJim wrote:
Alas, my late terrier lacked the killer instict. She was fine going into cover to make the bunnies break for my mate's lurcher. So that's a share. But she never killed. I don't know why, plenty of opportunity.
LordJim wrote:
squrlz4ever I don't know Gerry doesn't have the faintest notion about economics. 

Are you going to chide me every time I get a bit grumpy? And, be honest, we both know that Gerry hasn't the foggiest about economics, it's not a secret.
LordJim wrote:
Gerry1of1  I don't know diddly squat about economics, but I know wars are expensive.  

For whom? If you invest right it's a bonanza.

And if you are talking about an actual war ( which I think is unlikely ) then "winning" would include having no economic system at all. In my opinion.
LordJim wrote:
daegog I don't know the current state of Canadian air defence either, but in general I understand that it is outstanding. World class. Do not fuck with it. 

But it wouldn't happen because China has nothing to gain. Why precipitate the collapse of the world economy when you are winning? When you know it is mate in seven you don't kick over the board because you lose a pawn.
LordJim wrote:
daegog I have to say that you are so wrong you are off the map. If anyone knows how to play the long game, it's China. "Fuck it" is not a part of their political thinking. 
LordJim wrote:
semichisam01 True. If you are giving a TED talk you must know that your audience is both very well educated and paying a hell of a lot of money for this. Pretty shabby, I thought.
LordJim wrote:
semichisam01 True. If you guys didn't have Trump we would be the laughing stock of the world.
LordJim wrote:
semichisam01 Aye, true enough. But I am fond of many of the species we are destroying. It took a long time to arrive at the orang-utan,  the snow leopard or the eagle owl. Have you read Douglas Adams' "Last Chance To  See"? Stephen Fry did an up-date on the BBC;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fMwKYLJNRI
LordJim wrote:
squrlz4ever  the ideal medium for the deluded to link arms and reinforce themselves in their misguided beliefs. 

Thank god I'm immune from that.
LordJim wrote:
normalfreak2 Rural areas are less isolated than in the US and are traditionally Tory, in the old fashioned sense. In some areas the Liberal Democrats still have some influence, although greatly reduced. Of course rural areas include a lot of middle-class incomers. Education levels are pretty good. Far right populism is not really a feature of rural politics.

The far right tend to be drawn from towns and cities in post-indistrial decline or the poorer London boroughs. Education levels are lower in these places ang multi-generational unemployment has created a sense of despair.Even here the far-right can stir up trouble but it doesn't translate to political success. A councilor every now and then but they tend not to see out their terms.

Remember, not everyone who voted for Brexit is right wing or racist. Many of them were just fools.

{edit} As for a backlash, polls suggest that another vote would be firmly Remain, but polls are not reliable. From my personal experience a lot of Leave voters are horrified to realise that there never was a plan and that they were lied to by slippery customers who have since slid away. Nobody ever had a plan. 

A lot of Leave voters were plain racist and that's unlikely to change, although it may be slowly filtering through to them that Pakistan is not the EU.

Economic interest groups such as farmers and fishermen are now also very aware that they were given false promises and they will inevitably be worse off. Large scale farming needs migrant labour and small scale farming needs subsidies. Brexit means they lose both.

Unfortunately, the Labour Party has been feeble on this. Technically a new vote is possible. The EU has indicated that the UK could simply change its mind things could go back to normal. It is actually possible.

It seems likely that the DUP will renege on their deal with May (while keeping the bribe) so the government is likely to fall one way or another. Some say that if that happens the matter of Brexit devolves to parliament and another vote won't be needed. Others disagree.
LordJim wrote:
Gerry1of1 We all know you don't have the faintest notion about economics and yet you express an opinion on something as complex as this. An opinion that would fit on a bumper-sticker. I don't know anything about economics either, other than basics. 
LordJim wrote:
Fojos Sorry, pal, nothing there to respond to.
LordJim wrote:
daegog They are going to make a military strike at a major NATO country for one shady individual in custody? In China, shady billionaires are expendable. That person is already unimportant, and going home probably isn't too inviting.

Canada is not to be messed with. I think you are being unrealistic.
LordJim wrote:
mikesex You could be right. I hope so.
LordJim wrote:
daegog A military srike on a NATO country? OK, Trump has said he doesn't feel obliged to stand by the agreement, but everyone else does.
LordJim wrote:
Nice. Always had a couple of old globes about the place. Didn't know this about them.