Oddly, it’s also true of me and my wife. Maybe I was on to something?
London-based writer. Often climbing.
Oddly, it’s also true of me and my wife. Maybe I was on to something?
I thought that women drank tea and men drank coffee, because that was what my mum and dad did.
Whether or not George Mallory summitted Everest.
Mallory was a great climber. People who knew him think he had the ability. Another member of his expedition saw Mallory and his partner, Andrew Irvine, close to the summit, but not close enough to be certain whether or not they made it.
Neither man returned from the mountain. Mallory’s body was later found, many decades after he died. but Irvine was never seen again, dead or alive.
There are various other bits of circumstantial evidence, but the fact is we’ll simply never know for sure. I like to think they made it.
So, you’re saying there was a slight miscarriage of justice which, on appeal, was rectified? I’m sorry there was a problem but, by your own account, it was fixed.
The UK cannot be both Marxist and living under Sharia law; they’re diamatrically opposed. In fact, no where is Sharia law legally imposed, whatever you may have heard.
It is not true that you can’t be ‘proud’ of being ‘English’. There is a St. George’s Day parade in many towns and cities, including London, where it is led by Sadiq Khan, the mayor, who is both proudly Muslim and proudly English. Like most people, he sees no contradiction.
It is not true that talking about Anglo-Saxon culture is considered white supremacy. Schools and universities talk a great deal about figures from Shakespeare to Alan Turing to Millicent Fawcett (I’m picking three examples at random) all of whom were Anglo-Saxon. No one feels the need to point this out, because it would be fucking weird, but like all cultures everywhere, we mostly talk about people from our own culture. The idea this is banned or frowned upon is imaginary.
Yeah, as someone living here, this is nonsense. We put violent rioters in prison. Punishing criminals does not violate freedom; it’s a condition for it.
Is that the one that 'Trump campaign officials acknowledge aligns well’ with Project 2025? Loads of the policies are identical, not just well-aligned. It’s fair game to point up the links between the guy and the document when his ex-staffers wrote the document and his current staffers acknowledge the similarity of the document.
He (or his staff) needs to tell people the actual differences, rather than vague disavowals.
Try to learn Russian really quickly.
Little bit shocked that Bernie Sanders was responsible for two of the misleading claims. Fully half of the, uh, four headings in the article: a ‘day of lies’, producing four (4) lies? Guess they weren’t working too fast.
The Project 2025 stuff IMO is fair game till Trump explains what he’d do differently. As far as I can see, it’s at least consistent with his plans. If he wants Dems to shut up about it, he should say which parts and which authors he rejects. He can’t just vaguely say, ‘That document that says I should be a dictator? Nothing to do with my plans to be a dictator’ and expect people to go: okay, cool.
Yes, I see the ‘few false or misleading claims’. I’d be happier with no lies, I suppose, but the relevant contrast is not with the fantasy land where everyone lives by radical honesty, but with the Republicans, who lie constantly about almost everything.
when your own turns on you, it’s a pretty clear sign
Out of curiosity, would you agree this also applies to the numerous Republicans, former allies and employees who have turned on Trump?
You raise a fair point: what exactly is a zombie? To me, a zombie is not a sapient thing, so if it remembers its previous sapience, it’s not a zombie. But zombies aren’t real, which makes it difficult to define them precisely.
No. Jesus had his intellect and personality intact, which zombies do not.
NB: I’m taking the Gospels as gospel, here. I do not think the man himself rose from the dead.
You may well be right and that’s why it’s vital not to be complacent. Donate, volunteer, vote. Get out there and make a Harris win happen!
That may explain why they didn’t abolish slavery, but does not justify the fact that they themselves owned slaves.
Having strong morals is mutually exclusive with compromising your morals to enrich yourself, which we’ve established is something they did.
True, but one that conveniently allowed them to do what they were already doing anyway. As I say: not titans of moral probity.
Personal power, leadership abilities, integrity and morals were much stronger with these people, and in their times in general.
There’s just no reason at all to think this. Most obviously, people who signed their names to the idea ‘all men were created equal’ while themselves owning slaves quite obviously did not possess a high degree of moral integrity.
I’m never going to call it that.
How deep does the rabbit hole go?