CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 18)
Discussion
Challo said:
Timothy Bucktu said:
I'm surprised (well, I guess not really) this didn't get more attention.
They really are unbelievable. I have absolutely no interest in UK politics any more. They are all the same, and non deserve our votes.
It's a shame there isn't a viable alternative party where brilliant politicians like Brigden could go to!
Is he a brilliant politician? Really? Apart from his stance on vaccines what else has he done that is so brilliant? They really are unbelievable. I have absolutely no interest in UK politics any more. They are all the same, and non deserve our votes.
It's a shame there isn't a viable alternative party where brilliant politicians like Brigden could go to!
He's a proper old school politician, who actually tries to do some good for the people he represents.
If you can spare an hour, and are genuinely interested...have a listen to this interview.
https://youtu.be/DanaTUP61_Y
Timothy Bucktu said:
Challo said:
Timothy Bucktu said:
I'm surprised (well, I guess not really) this didn't get more attention.
They really are unbelievable. I have absolutely no interest in UK politics any more. They are all the same, and non deserve our votes.
It's a shame there isn't a viable alternative party where brilliant politicians like Brigden could go to!
Is he a brilliant politician? Really? Apart from his stance on vaccines what else has he done that is so brilliant? They really are unbelievable. I have absolutely no interest in UK politics any more. They are all the same, and non deserve our votes.
It's a shame there isn't a viable alternative party where brilliant politicians like Brigden could go to!
He's a proper old school politician, who actually tries to do some good for the people he represents.
If you can spare an hour, and are genuinely interested...have a listen to this interview.
https://youtu.be/DanaTUP61_Y
It’s very scary what is happening in general !!
Seventy said:
Indeed.
Johnboy and Elysium have over 10000 (yes, ten thousand!) posts between them.
Add to that the time spent trawling the web and twitter to find things to analyse and post about!!
Re Djokovic, he’ll have to suck it up as I’ll be amazed if the US change the rules for him.
I can’t visit either even though I used to live there and the majority of my family are there, but I’m sucking it up as well - no moaning or trying to make political capital from me.
I’m sure he won’t starve.
The higher the post count, the nuttier the poster hey?Johnboy and Elysium have over 10000 (yes, ten thousand!) posts between them.
Add to that the time spent trawling the web and twitter to find things to analyse and post about!!
Re Djokovic, he’ll have to suck it up as I’ll be amazed if the US change the rules for him.
I can’t visit either even though I used to live there and the majority of my family are there, but I’m sucking it up as well - no moaning or trying to make political capital from me.
I’m sure he won’t starve.
Ivan stewart said:
Timothy Bucktu said:
Challo said:
Timothy Bucktu said:
I'm surprised (well, I guess not really) this didn't get more attention.
They really are unbelievable. I have absolutely no interest in UK politics any more. They are all the same, and non deserve our votes.
It's a shame there isn't a viable alternative party where brilliant politicians like Brigden could go to!
Is he a brilliant politician? Really? Apart from his stance on vaccines what else has he done that is so brilliant? They really are unbelievable. I have absolutely no interest in UK politics any more. They are all the same, and non deserve our votes.
It's a shame there isn't a viable alternative party where brilliant politicians like Brigden could go to!
He's a proper old school politician, who actually tries to do some good for the people he represents.
If you can spare an hour, and are genuinely interested...have a listen to this interview.
https://youtu.be/DanaTUP61_Y
It’s very scary what is happening in general !!
Roman Rhodes said:
Elysium said:
You are over complicating the situation. We all know that there is no logical reason to deny entry to Djokovic. However that is exactly what they are going to do, because it is politically expedient.
No, we don't "all know that". What we do know is that the "logical reason" are the laws as they stand at the moment. As I've said before, the fact that you or I or anyone else doesn't like them is irrelevant.Roman Rhodes said:
Elysium said:
He is being treated the same as every other unvaccinated person. They are all being punished because the state does not want to lose face.
You're partly getting there and, contrary to your previous assertion, admit that he is being treated the same as every other unvaccinated person.jameswills said:
Ah the good old “you’re and conspiracy theorist” argument, even have a shorthand of CT now!
Let’s agree that maybe conspiracy THEORIES can get a bit wild. Why about actual conspiracies? Like western governments colluding with big tech, Pharma and the press to shut down any narrative that didn’t support their ideals? That’s an actual conspiracy, that happened. It was a bit of a theory on here a while back, so can we maybe have some feedback from the usual suspects as to how you can dismiss a particular theory and not expect it to be come truth in say 6 months time?
There are few things that are genuinely new.Let’s agree that maybe conspiracy THEORIES can get a bit wild. Why about actual conspiracies? Like western governments colluding with big tech, Pharma and the press to shut down any narrative that didn’t support their ideals? That’s an actual conspiracy, that happened. It was a bit of a theory on here a while back, so can we maybe have some feedback from the usual suspects as to how you can dismiss a particular theory and not expect it to be come truth in say 6 months time?
Just another iteration of the old "military-industrial" complex that Ike warned about.
Sound at all familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93ind...
The only difference now is that for some bizarre reason a large number of folks who think they are "progressive" think that blind support of an agenda that includes most of the same elements is the only acceptable POV.
rodericb said:
He might be a proper old school politician but he did do biological sciences at Nottingham university and did his dissertation on viruses and viroids, which is probably a bit more knowledge related to COVID-19 than the other politicians.
Yes heaven forbid , a politician that understands an issue that will never do !!Ivan stewart said:
Never knew all that , the media and many in politics have made him out to be a nut job ,
It’s very scary what is happening in general !!
Yes, exactly. I only wish more people would realise what's going on! The MSM (or the propaganda arm on the Government if you will) are complicit in all this, so of course they'll try and discredit people like Brigden. It's why me saying that would label me a conspiracy loon, and the majority stupid dumb people will agree with them. It’s very scary what is happening in general !!
Thankfully at lot of people now see what's been going on all along.
Edited by Timothy Bucktu on Wednesday 22 March 09:35
Timothy Bucktu said:
Yes, he is, well I think so anyway.
He's a proper old school politician, who actually tries to do some good for the people he represents.
If you can spare an hour, and are genuinely interested...have a listen to this interview.
https://youtu.be/DanaTUP61_Y
Wow very interesting - Sounds a very decent and down to earth MP.He's a proper old school politician, who actually tries to do some good for the people he represents.
If you can spare an hour, and are genuinely interested...have a listen to this interview.
https://youtu.be/DanaTUP61_Y
Elysium said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Elysium said:
You are over complicating the situation. We all know that there is no logical reason to deny entry to Djokovic. However that is exactly what they are going to do, because it is politically expedient.
No, we don't "all know that". What we do know is that the "logical reason" are the laws as they stand at the moment. As I've said before, the fact that you or I or anyone else doesn't like them is irrelevant.Roman Rhodes said:
Elysium said:
He is being treated the same as every other unvaccinated person. They are all being punished because the state does not want to lose face.
You're partly getting there and, contrary to your previous assertion, admit that he is being treated the same as every other unvaccinated person.You have claimed Djokovic is “being made an example of”, he is being “punished”. The US cannot “give in to a high profile ‘anti-vaxxer’ like Djokovic”, “there is no logical reason to deny entry to Djokovic”, “he is being punished because the state does not want to lose face”. Sorry, but you have clearly made the assertion that he is being treated differently.
Unfortunately, as with your assertion that the ‘conspiracy theory’ only exists in my imagination, it seems you have to be continually reminded of the facts.
Carry on bleating about the US rules if it makes you feel better. I’ll stick with my opinion that the evidence-free claims as to why Djokovic isn’t playing tennis in the US are conspiracy theories.
In other news BJ is back in the limelight in case anyone missed it. What I find fascinating is the constant ‘it wasn’t fair. i couldn’t do X whilst you were having a party, you broke the rules’, when the question should be ‘I wasn’t allowed to do X because you said covid was so serious we had to stay apart, yet you didn’t have those concerns for yourself and your work colleagues, why is that?’
M1AGM said:
In other news BJ is back in the limelight in case anyone missed it. What I find fascinating is the constant ‘it wasn’t fair. i couldn’t do X whilst you were having a party, you broke the rules’, when the question should be ‘I wasn’t allowed to do X because you said covid was so serious we had to stay apart, yet you didn’t have those concerns for yourself and your work colleagues, why is that?’
The US has got their Trump case, we've got our Boris not really a party but that's what it's being made out to be for the media to focus on...I wonder what other looming potential global catastrophe they could be trying to hide this time...It's all just theater.
Challo said:
Is he a brilliant politician? Really? Apart from his stance on vaccines what else has he done that is so brilliant?
He's my MP, and he's helped me a few times, on both personal and business issues. Brilliant might be stretching things, but he's been very brave in standing up, and he is a good constituent MP. 
JagLover said:
There are few things that are genuinely new.
Just another iteration of the old "military-industrial" complex that Ike warned about.
Sound at all familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93ind...
The only difference now is that for some bizarre reason a large number of folks who think they are "progressive" think that blind support of an agenda that includes most of the same elements is the only acceptable POV.
The "progressive" support for this agenda is bizarre if you look at the ideology, but makes a lot more sense if you look at the sociology of it. It picked up almost immediately where communism failed when it was "born" at the Rio summit in the early 90s and grew as religion declined. This seemed to bring together dispirate groups concerned with the environment, wealth distribution, animal rights, the (receding) possibility of nuclear war etc, and focus them on one thing.Just another iteration of the old "military-industrial" complex that Ike warned about.
Sound at all familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93ind...
The only difference now is that for some bizarre reason a large number of folks who think they are "progressive" think that blind support of an agenda that includes most of the same elements is the only acceptable POV.
If you'd been a an academic, clergyman or artist with communist sympathies in the cold war era you'd he an environmentalist vaxophile now.
It has it's revolutionary arm. It has a utopian vision. Its genuine concerns about pollution and resource use. Its corporate backers who see opportunities for wealth and popularity. Its political spokesmen who see a grander role for themselves. Like the old religion, it tells us that our comfort and wealth in this life must come at some cost. And like both communism and religion it claims to have the answer to how we deal with powers beyond our immediate control. The answer of course being to give power and control to them.
What I find more baffling is why the opposition to these movements is so ad hoc and narrow.
There was never anything especially conservative or liberating about untrammelled corporatism or hedonistic decadence. They were just sharp sticks aimed at communism's weak points.
The best explanation I can think of is that the 'left' are better at selling an animating vision which plays to fears and aspirations, while the 'right' (they are such inadequate terms, but useful shorthand here) are good at seeing the problems with this, but not necessarily good at selling an alternative, or even refocussing people on the more constructive things. Such things are often more mundane and earthly - if you want clean energy then domestic natural gas is way more effective than wind farms, imports and then coal when it all goes wrong. If you want public health then basic exercise and a healthy diet will achieve far more than closing down society for months on end until you can buy everyone dubious vaccines. If you want to improve the developing world then letting them develop will do it far faster and more effectively than foriegn aid, concerts and NGOs ever could. And if you want to raise the standard of living for the poor then a healthy economy and sensible legal system will produce far better results than all the elaborate welfare schemes and redistribution efforts they can dream up.
I think briefly in the 1990s we were in a pretty good place, where the collectivist ideologies of fascism and communism were defeated, religion was tamed and there was broad agreement on the idea of a mixed economy and a liberal society with a healthy will not to destroy the planet or suffocate ourselves. What that didn't do was capture the popular imagination enough to defend and enhance that balance or bring on board those who had a need for a deeper and more profound narrative.
This is something like my understanding of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, roughly between the unrest of 1848 and 1914. Immense progress was made in many ways and it could be seen as a golden era, but it then collapsed into the stupidity of WW1.
J210 said:
To be fair, Reicher/Michie were more of the school of insulting and shaming 'bad' people who weren't complying. So less of the 'poo at paul/ruggedscotty' type predicting covid disaster at every point but more like some of the notable 'anti-CT' posters as found here.......JuanCarlosFandango said:
The "progressive" support for this agenda is bizarre if you look at the ideology, but makes a lot more sense if you look at the sociology of it. It picked up almost immediately where communism failed when it was "born" at the Rio summit in the early 90s and grew as religion declined. This seemed to bring together dispirate groups concerned with the environment, wealth distribution, animal rights, the (receding) possibility of nuclear war etc, and focus them on one thing.
If you'd been a an academic, clergyman or artist with communist sympathies in the cold war era you'd he an environmentalist vaxophile now.
It has it's revolutionary arm. It has a utopian vision. Its genuine concerns about pollution and resource use. Its corporate backers who see opportunities for wealth and popularity. Its political spokesmen who see a grander role for themselves. Like the old religion, it tells us that our comfort and wealth in this life must come at some cost. And like both communism and religion it claims to have the answer to how we deal with powers beyond our immediate control. The answer of course being to give power and control to them.
What I find more baffling is why the opposition to these movements is so ad hoc and narrow.
There was never anything especially conservative or liberating about untrammelled corporatism or hedonistic decadence. They were just sharp sticks aimed at communism's weak points.
The best explanation I can think of is that the 'left' are better at selling an animating vision which plays to fears and aspirations, while the 'right' (they are such inadequate terms, but useful shorthand here) are good at seeing the problems with this, but not necessarily good at selling an alternative, or even refocussing people on the more constructive things. Such things are often more mundane and earthly - if you want clean energy then domestic natural gas is way more effective than wind farms, imports and then coal when it all goes wrong. If you want public health then basic exercise and a healthy diet will achieve far more than closing down society for months on end until you can buy everyone dubious vaccines. If you want to improve the developing world then letting them develop will do it far faster and more effectively than foriegn aid, concerts and NGOs ever could. And if you want to raise the standard of living for the poor then a healthy economy and sensible legal system will produce far better results than all the elaborate welfare schemes and redistribution efforts they can dream up.
I think briefly in the 1990s we were in a pretty good place, where the collectivist ideologies of fascism and communism were defeated, religion was tamed and there was broad agreement on the idea of a mixed economy and a liberal society with a healthy will not to destroy the planet or suffocate ourselves. What that didn't do was capture the popular imagination enough to defend and enhance that balance or bring on board those who had a need for a deeper and more profound narrative.
This is something like my understanding of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, roughly between the unrest of 1848 and 1914. Immense progress was made in many ways and it could be seen as a golden era, but it then collapsed into the stupidity of WW1.
Yes you are right. If you'd been a an academic, clergyman or artist with communist sympathies in the cold war era you'd he an environmentalist vaxophile now.
It has it's revolutionary arm. It has a utopian vision. Its genuine concerns about pollution and resource use. Its corporate backers who see opportunities for wealth and popularity. Its political spokesmen who see a grander role for themselves. Like the old religion, it tells us that our comfort and wealth in this life must come at some cost. And like both communism and religion it claims to have the answer to how we deal with powers beyond our immediate control. The answer of course being to give power and control to them.
What I find more baffling is why the opposition to these movements is so ad hoc and narrow.
There was never anything especially conservative or liberating about untrammelled corporatism or hedonistic decadence. They were just sharp sticks aimed at communism's weak points.
The best explanation I can think of is that the 'left' are better at selling an animating vision which plays to fears and aspirations, while the 'right' (they are such inadequate terms, but useful shorthand here) are good at seeing the problems with this, but not necessarily good at selling an alternative, or even refocussing people on the more constructive things. Such things are often more mundane and earthly - if you want clean energy then domestic natural gas is way more effective than wind farms, imports and then coal when it all goes wrong. If you want public health then basic exercise and a healthy diet will achieve far more than closing down society for months on end until you can buy everyone dubious vaccines. If you want to improve the developing world then letting them develop will do it far faster and more effectively than foriegn aid, concerts and NGOs ever could. And if you want to raise the standard of living for the poor then a healthy economy and sensible legal system will produce far better results than all the elaborate welfare schemes and redistribution efforts they can dream up.
I think briefly in the 1990s we were in a pretty good place, where the collectivist ideologies of fascism and communism were defeated, religion was tamed and there was broad agreement on the idea of a mixed economy and a liberal society with a healthy will not to destroy the planet or suffocate ourselves. What that didn't do was capture the popular imagination enough to defend and enhance that balance or bring on board those who had a need for a deeper and more profound narrative.
This is something like my understanding of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, roughly between the unrest of 1848 and 1914. Immense progress was made in many ways and it could be seen as a golden era, but it then collapsed into the stupidity of WW1.
In isolation the blind defence of corporate interests might seem counter-intuitive except of course where they have allied themselves to the new faith.
The lack of any single "counter-faith" explains why there is no counter by centre-right governments. They blindly sign up for things that will completely transform our economy and society, "net zero" being a classic example, with little understanding but with fear of being denounced as heretics to the new religion. That is except where they have already been co-opted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff