🙂
Nick Clegg is [COLOR="Blue"]"a new way of life"? :011: 😀
Hi Sunanda,
I'm sure we've all had them: those words which aren't utterly common, but you fairly often come up with them in one's reading, and one or two you just never do ask or find out what they are? Mine this week is 'hyperbole'. I've been reading it off and on all my life and never bothered looking it up! So it's my 'word of the week'. 🙂
I reckon you just wrote a sample of it, clarifying its meaning no end? 🙂
If I wanted "a new way of life", I doubt any election is going to deliver it. Hmm - I was about to write, so the only option is to emigrate. But I very much do believe, actually, we'll be potentially in line for a very seriously bad [COLOR="Blue"]"new way of life" if we get a hung parliament and the involved parties bicker and delay rather than act decisively.
We really need swift and decisive action now, starting with the economy (its perils to us all have been temporarily held in abeyance and truly haven't really hit us yet), then moving on.
It was actually myself (I have to get on so can't look up the thread at this very moment) who was the first person on the whole of HP to warn that a huge credit crunch and bank-collapse was coming (pretty early in 2008? - I'd have to look). In like manner, I'd warn now that we severely can do without a hung parliament. And votes for yer Nick deliver that.
However, barring a miracle we'll get one anyway.... Getting exactly what we drastically don't need right now.
V
🙂
Nick Clegg is "a new way of life"? :011: 😀
V
What I wrote was:
So I don't particularly care if people do just vote for Nick: IMO it's a move towards change and a new way of life.
I think the hyperbole is all yours, Venetian. And isn't it a tad disingenuous to so drastically edit your post before last so that in effect it appears as though you're pre-empting my own last post? By talking about change I was referring to the shift that so many of us believe is coming. I totally agree that we are going to be facing major austerities within a few years and will need a whole new mindset to cope with it. I imagine we'll end up with some kind of dictatorship, given the imminent arrival of ID cards and the already existing cctv set up etc. I would lean towards any kind of government that included politicians who profess to think outside the tired old boxes. And neither Cameron nor Brown, slippy characters both appeal in the least. I am totally able to take on board the fact that Clegg is probably as slippery as the other two but perhaps it's a case of 'the devil you don't know.'
Trident
Trident could maybe be a whole other thread? It's certainly of import. I can't promise to take part as I don't always look at HP now. But all views welcome, and I confess to being no expert on the subject. And it is one where Clegg takes a different view. Here's my limited 'take' - limited as I lack knowledge as I'll show ...
Just IMHO we have to have a credible nuclear deterrent. Trident is the only deterrent that has no known location so can't be taken out and destroyed by a pre-emptive strike. What other nuclear capability do we have now? (I don't know.) But they are surely antiquated, such as cannon shells or bombs dropped by planes? That's not enough. And remember this is not for use - it's as deterrent, in a world where we are facing possible nuclear proliferation once more (Iran, North Korea, Russia again, China?).
Nuclear deterence has to be planned untold years in advance. There's simply no way to know what threat we may face in five, ten, twenty years down the line. It might be a very capable world power threatening us again such as Russia or China. If we have no deterrent, they can lord it over us and take control of the globe, and of our own interests, piece by piece, by threat.
Doesn't Trident need upgrading, as you say? I'm under the impression it does if we are to keep it. If we are to keep the present subs, they'll last a few years more, but when they do become clapped out, there will be nothing to replace them, and replacement has to be planned years in advance i.e. starting now.
Clegg's policy on Trident is in line with all his others: stemming from his perception that we are now a two-bit nation with no international role to play, and patriotism is worth nothing. Therefore let's sell ourselves out into a European superstate utterly, let's have no credible armed forces, and let's let a couple more million non-British-thinking immigrants (i.e. not integrating well) in - 'cos we don't have nearly enough of such yet (he seems to think).
Anyway - Trident. And keep in mind that even not having Trident isn't going to make much of a dent into our economic woes - it's almost petty as a sum by comparison to the cuts needed. Because it's a weapon and nuclear, it simply provokes knee-jerk reactions.
V
I'm sorry, I can't even bring myself to read the whole of your truly depressing and negative post. 'We need a nuclear deterrent'! What a horrible thought. I'm sorry but I was under the impression that with our thoughts and prayers, nay with our very beings, we create our world. And I don't choose to create a world that contains nuclear deterrents which cost so much more than it would take to - say - feed the starving of a third world country. It seems to me peculiarly skewed to even think about a nuclear deterrent ('not to use' of course) since if any of the 'rogue' nuclear states choose to go nuclear then i don't think anyone will emerge into anything other than post apocalyptic disaster. Surely in the 21st century, at the dawn of an entirely possible new golden age, the last thing we need is nuclear capacity of any kind.
Our society basically doesn't work very well. The last decades have promoted greed and fear in equal measure. Yet so many people around the world are demonstrating their longing and willingness to live by different ethical standards. I want to be a part of a brave new world, not yet another version of a tainted and tawdry old one. It doesn't have to just be a dream, it can be my reality, even if it's no one else's.
And isn't it a tad disingenuous to so drastically edit your post before last so that in effect it appears as though you're pre-empting my own last post?
No, to clarify. I hadn't any idea about your post. My way of posting TBH is to get it all down and posted, and then TBH I read it when posted and check for typos or whatever then, LOL. I just polished typos or whatever, and it appeared as the most recent post as I did so. A lesson not to leap to conclusions.
V
I'm sorry, I can't even bring myself to read the whole
If you haven't read it, you haven't replied to it. I would say that someone I admire states: "The measure of your spirituality is your practicality". We were only saved from being a Nazi-overrun nation by a man, Churchill, who was practical and not 'away with the fairies', thinking there was not and never would be any national threat ... when as very much in the minority, he called for defence to be in place and to be practical. 🙂
V
well i've just watched the 3 monkeys and my mind is still set.....what a pair of little b!tches two of them were:eek:....I wouldn't like either of them to run the country;)
xxx
If you haven't read it, you haven't replied to it.
Who said I was replying to your post? I'm simply commenting on a state of mind which I deplore: the same old, sad old way of thinking down the same track all the time. I think it behoves us to use our imaginations a little more constructively.
Originally Posted by scott [url]
[/url]
TBH, this is what angers me about politics *and* religious groups. They all go out of their way to tell you what is wrong with the other guy, but not tell you what is right or wrong with themselves. I would consider the one who tells me about their own weaknesses the most honest of all...I think Gordon Brown has made his weakness pretty clear! But if you want a heavyweight...
I sorta meant the weaknesses they themselves are aware of and acknowledge - not what is denied but obvious to everyone else. That is deception. Or foolishness.
I'll resist the temptation to say I told you so. Apologies to anyone who was hoping to see my bottom.
Oh.....bum!!!
I'll resist the temptation to say I told you so. Apologies to anyone who was hoping to see my bottom.
Hmmmmm....hardy resisting Nick me thinks;)
I don't see how they can take this result seeing as they turned lots of voters away. I wonder how many did the postal vote and how effective that was:rolleyes:
xxxx
Poor old Nick Clegg but well done Caroline Lucus
i cant believe the lib dems didnt get more seats. something needs to be done about our voting system, its blatantly unfair that a party that gets (latest figure 23% of vote) gets less than 10% of the seats and that getting 6% more votes gets you 200 more seats! :confused: :confused: :confused:
anyway, good news for the green party with caroline winning in brighton 😀
I can't believe it either Vicki, every independant poll I've seen shows the lib dems to be in the lead. I also postal voted too so I hope mine made it....it's all a bit iffy if you ask me, but then we are dealing with politians so we're silly if we expect it to be 'straight up'.....they're the biggest crooks and con folk going if you ask me xxx
Mr Supersub I am wondering
whether ANYONE ELSE is wondering
whether you still lost the bet in the end? :confused:
I know it was about the Lib Dems coming 3rd,
which I know they did, but with them also being in government now - there could be a loop hole
which would mean there is a certain something you were rash enough to promise??????? 😉
Just wondering as no-one else has mentioned it!!
What do we all think?
I think he should!!
love Mel xx