|
Post by mercian on Dec 30, 2023 0:45:33 GMT
The rest of the free world, not just Europe, but the likes of Canada and Australia etc need to start rearming on a big scale. I'm interested in what you define as being "the free world". The term was often used in the mid 20th century to include countries that were anything but "free", but weren't Communist. 70 years on, are you still using that, somewhat archaic, term in the same way?I'm not going to list all countries that fit and indeed the precise list is irrelevant. The phrase is a convenient shorthand which most people understand.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 30, 2023 0:46:48 GMT
I see that some people have accepted an award in the New Year Dishonours list. After very careful consideration, I felt I had no alternative but to decline. Not that it makes much difference in that virtually everyone calls me 'Sir' anyway! I started feeling old when shop assistants began to call me sir.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 30, 2023 0:50:57 GMT
domjgThis is an interesting assessment of world military power. It feels pretty accurate to me. UK is at around 14 minutes in. www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_HSlsPEUnkAs I've been saying for some time we really need to beef up our armed forces. Perhaps it's being done on the quiet but I doubt it. I'm ready to shoot drones down with my bow and arrows but I doubt if that will hold them for long.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 30, 2023 1:04:06 GMT
I'm interested in what you define as being "the free world". The term was often used in the mid 20th century to include countries that were anything but "free", but weren't Communist. 70 years on, are you still using that, somewhat archaic, term in the same way? I'm not going to list all countries that fit and indeed the precise list is irrelevant. The phrase is a convenient shorthand which most people understand. Fair enough, You use a slogan from the mid 20th century, but have no idea what it actually means. I accept that most people with whom you associate have an equally vague concept that they associate with the term.
As to the term "Sir", in the early part of my career I was legally entitled to beat any young person in my "care" who did not refer to me by that honorific - or even if they did, but I considered its use to be sarcastic.
I await a revision of UK law which would restore those ancient privileges, whereby any member of the knighthood could horsewhip anyone showing disrespect to them. Bring discipline and respect back to society!
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 30, 2023 1:16:42 GMT
Anent "pints of wine"
Now this, I didn't know -
'when Burns wrote, "gae bring tae me a pint o wine, and fill it in a silver tassie," he was likely referring to the Scots pint or 'joug' of approx 1.7 litres or three imperial pints.'
These new wee English bottles are but a reversion to an effete culture - the Babycham of drinks.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Dec 30, 2023 1:50:36 GMT
oldnat "I would expect any reasonable person to comprehend the tensions between different layers of government, but I don't expect reasonableness from you."[/font][/quote] Well you are in the fortunate position of never being disappointed then aren't you. I obviously comprehend the tensions between different different levels of government. You hv been reminding us of one such set of tensions for what 15 years: although your ocean of repetitive posting failed to give us any inkling of the chaos that was occurring in the SNP. Perhaps it was as great a surprise to you as to the rest of us. I may hv missed yr providing useful posts but then I dont live on the site. Beside the comment you quote was an ironical aside. My main point was that Haley's comment was indeed bizarre. Your view she was speaking to her constituency was disproved by the fact that she was forced to recant: her comment was stumling & incoherent. She looked weak & defensive. Yr claim secession was the primary cause of the war was merely to privilege the sufficient condition over the necessary ones. Without placing slavery & all it connoted at the centre the story makes little sense. PS. Haley was the Governor who took down the Confederate flag from her state's capitol.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 30, 2023 1:59:19 GMT
Anent "pints of wine"
Now this, I didn't know -
'when Burns wrote, "gae bring tae me a pint o wine, and fill it in a silver tassie," he was likely referring to the Scots pint or 'joug' of approx 1.7 litres or three imperial pints.'
These new wee English bottles are but a reversion to an effete culture - the Babycham of drinks. A tad dismissive of one of Shepton Mallet's more significant exports, I feel. After all, everyone loves a Babycham. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babycham
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,256
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 30, 2023 6:27:52 GMT
Tim Martin, who donated £400,000 to the Vote Leave campaign and £50,000 to the Tories in the 2019 election, is knighted for services to hospitality and culture. More recently, Martin has given £25,000 to Nigel Farage’s Reform party.
Who can doubt the services to culture and hospitality provided by the brexitanians favourite pub landlord in his dismal 'spoons hostalries,where else could you get four pints of lager with your full English surrounded by the remains of last night's furniture and clients.
When not running crap pubs and being awful to his staff Martin spends most of the time bemoaning the staff shortages caused by Brexit.
Arise Sir Tim not remotely nice but definitely dim
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,256
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 30, 2023 6:42:29 GMT
"Ketchup, armpits, a butt and make up, put in a blender." According to former republican congressman and colonel in the air national guard , Adam Kinzinger that's the smell of a traitor . youtu.be/QhzTac-ihD4?si=PRUJmdnXuV5HQGFS
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,002
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 30, 2023 8:12:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 30, 2023 8:15:44 GMT
crossbat11 and steveI make a prediction to help things along. Within three to four years from now, “vanilla-extract”, “personality-vacuum” Starmer will be widely acclaimed as the most charismatic leader the country has seen in living memory. I was a little dismissive and unduly sarcastic in my response to your original post on the subject of political leadership and the significance of the personal stamp that leaders can bring to affairs of state and party. Whilst I was in disagreement with what you said, it deserved a better response than the one I gave. Apologies. In terms of the argument you were making, I think you got too fixated with charisma. I actually agree with you that this can be a nebulous political attribute and very much in the eye of the beholder. It can be a quality bestowed retrospectively too. The aura of power can sprinkle stardust on the dullest of personalities, although some politicians do have more superficially appealing personas than others. Easy charm, fine oratorical skills etc My point was about the importance of a whole range of personal qualities of a political leader that can strongly influence the parties and governments they lead. They are often undesirable qualities too, or a dearth of good ones. Indecisiveness, weakness, impulsiveness, dishonesty etc. All political leaders are hugely influential in the way our democracy works. They influence the direction of the parties they lead and how successful they are electorally. Once in government they are crucial in many ways. If they weren't why is it that in recent years the Tories have clutched so many leadership straws in a desperate attempt to change their fortunes and reboot the government! I've always subscribed too to the idea that great men and women shape history.
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 30, 2023 8:32:53 GMT
I believe I noticed a slightly lighter evening tonight! Having checked sunset time, it is now 7 minutes later than during the 9 day period of stasis which ran from 9th - 17th December. Evening sunset has now returned to where it was on 27th November. It is still a pretty trivial change, but psychologically helpful to know that the evenings are now lighter than for over a month. Does it really change that quickly, I thought it was a more or less 10 minute change per week? As a habitual runner living in a village with almost no street lighting I hate the dark evenings. Edit: I meant 10 mins per week Up here in t'North it's 15 mins+ a week. darker earlier in the winter and lighter later in the summer than further south. I got talking to a guy once who had worked in one of the countries on the equator. The main thing he found hardest to cope with was instant light at 6.30am and instant dark at 6.30pm. All year without variance. No sunsets or sunrises. Drove him mad he said.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,256
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 30, 2023 8:40:39 GMT
barbara There's a happy medium Here's the sunset over Kassiopi in June
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,256
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 30, 2023 8:46:24 GMT
And here's one from nearly a thousand miles further south in Los Cristianos
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 30, 2023 9:08:49 GMT
Don't get me started. I've been boring friends for years about this (ie the earliest sunset being in early December, and the latest sunrise being in late December). I can talk for hours, or at least minutes, about it, but I'm sure you're aware of the reason. To summarise, the solar day (ie day+night) is slightly longer than 24 hours at this time of year due to the Earth being closer to the Sun.
Ooh I always wondered what was going on there. Thanks. The thing that fries my brain is that, logically, the sun should be due east and west 6 hours before / after solar noon. Except that this isnt the case, and it varies enormously over the course of the year. This may be due to either something to do with angular distance, or because the universe is actually an insane nightmare opperating in accordance with the whims of a mad and capricious god. I always thought it was because one of the elephants flexed a stiff front knee.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Dec 30, 2023 9:11:22 GMT
Election Maps UK @electionmapsuk · 9h Westinster Voting Intention:
LAB: 45% (-4) CON: 23% (+4) LDM: 10% (+1) RFM: 10% (-1) GRN: 6% (-1) SNP: 4% (+1)
Via @peoplepolling , TBC.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 30, 2023 9:21:14 GMT
Election Maps UK @electionmapsuk · 9h Westinster Voting Intention: LAB: 45% (-4) CON: 23% (+4) LDM: 10% (+1) RFM: 10% (-1) GRN: 6% (-1) SNP: 4% (+1) Via @peoplepolling , TBC. Reversion to mean? The previous 30% Labour lead this pollster had looked way out of kilter. Tories on 19% too!!?? Never right. Even this 22% Labour lead looks a little on the high side.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 30, 2023 9:27:37 GMT
Issues polling; the NHS is tipped to become a big voter concern in 2024 -
I'm not surprised that only 15% of voters blame the pandemic for the many problems, but I am somewhat surprised that the government doesn't make more of this as a causal issue. It would potentially help get them off the hook, partially, at least, although at the risk of raising the question of what they would do about it.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,256
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 30, 2023 9:29:08 GMT
Spain maintains its tradition of picking political leaders directly from central casting. Here's newly reappointed deputy prime minister Yolanda Diaz who joins Pedro Sanchez in the coalition. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by kay9 on Dec 30, 2023 9:36:07 GMT
I got talking to a guy once who had worked in one of the countries on the equator. The main thing he found hardest to cope with was instant light at 6.30am and instant dark at 6.30pm. All year without variance. No sunsets or sunrises. Drove him mad he said. “ I got talking to a guy once who had worked in one of the countries on the equator. The main thing he found hardest to cope with was instant light at 6.30am and instant dark at 6.30pm. All year without variance. No sunsets or sunrises. Drove him mad he said.” I lived for 4 years in Accra. Here is a sunset from Labadi - not my photo - which is less than 6° from the Equator.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 30, 2023 9:36:31 GMT
Misnamed in my opinion. It is not cronyism but corruption. Cash for honours.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 30, 2023 9:38:42 GMT
I wonder if this is the sort of stuff that's putting paid to the Tories, much more so than cost of living issues and other economic/political travails currently besetting the government. Like Partygate, sleaze really resonates with voters and sticks too. It forms a lasting impression in their minds that finds an ultimate expression in the ballot box. I think it has real political traction, more so even than declining standards of living. The John Major government in its latter years of 1995-97 actually governed fairly efficiently and competently, certainly in terms of economic stewardship, but they couldn't escape the all pervading aroma of sleaze and corruption that had become attached to them. Nor could they escape the electoral reckoning from voters who had long made up their minds about them. Nothing, not even economic growth and rising living standards, was going to get them to change their minds either. I sense a similar mood amongst the electorate now. Whatever Sunak does, even if by some miracle or sleight of hand, he meets all his five pledges, he's doomed. Credit is likely to remain persistently elusive, as Major found. It's sleaze stupid. If the voters want you gone, then gone it will be. Next week or in 12 months time. It makes no real difference. Andrew Neil was actually saying this last week and, by Jove, I think he was right.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,002
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 30, 2023 10:58:18 GMT
Incredible
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 30, 2023 11:01:33 GMT
I wonder if this is the sort of stuff that's putting paid to the Tories, much more so than cost of living issues and other economic/political travails currently besetting the government. Like Partygate, sleaze really resonates with voters and sticks too. It forms a lasting impression in their minds that finds an ultimate expression in the ballot box. I think it has real political traction, more so even than declining standards of living. The John Major government in its latter years of 1995-97 actually governed fairly efficiently and competently, certainly in terms of economic stewardship, but they couldn't escape the all pervading aroma of sleaze and corruption that had become attached to them. The thing that did for the Major government was the exit from the ERM and the firm impression it created in the public mind of economic incompetence. This is clearly visible in the VI polling for 1992-97. Blair's centrist appeal was likely a secondary factor as he made it 'safe' to vote Labour. I think without those things the Conservatives could have survived the sleaze stuff, as they have before and since. It looks like Truss and Kwarteng provided the 'ERM' moment from which the Tories have not been able to fully recover, and Starmer is attempting a Blair (without the personal appeal). Its always about the economy at the end of the day; the rest is just icing on the cake.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 30, 2023 11:17:54 GMT
crossbat11 - your selection of Jeremy Thorpe as your avatar gives me the excuse to post a link to one of the funniest bits of satire ever. Admittedly you have to be a bit long in the tooth to get all the jokes, but that should suit a lot of the people on this forum. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xi-agPf95M
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 30, 2023 11:23:57 GMT
I wonder if this is the sort of stuff that's putting paid to the Tories, much more so than cost of living issues and other economic/political travails currently besetting the government. Like Partygate, sleaze really resonates with voters and sticks too. It forms a lasting impression in their minds that finds an ultimate expression in the ballot box. I think it has real political traction, more so even than declining standards of living. The John Major government in its latter years of 1995-97 actually governed fairly efficiently and competently, certainly in terms of economic stewardship, but they couldn't escape the all pervading aroma of sleaze and corruption that had become attached to them. The thing that did for the Major government was the exit from the ERM and the firm impression it created in the public mind of economic incompetence. This is clearly visible in the VI polling for 1992-97. Blair's centrist appeal was likely a secondary factor as he made it 'safe' to vote Labour. I think without those things the Conservatives could have survived the sleaze stuff, as they have before and since. It looks like Truss and Kwarteng provided the 'ERM' moment from which the Tories have not been able to fully recover, and Starmer is attempting a Blair (without the personal appeal). Its always about the economy at the end of the day; the rest is just icing on the cake. Hmmmm. Not sure about some of this. Obviously big economic shocks usually damage the standing of the incumbents, whether deservedly so or not. If the problems can clearly be traced to government incompetence, as with the Truss/Kwarteng budget and the ERM fiasco, then it is especially damaging, but I think there are other, sometimes more subtle factors, that form a settled view about a government amongst the electorate. Put simply, people don't like being governed by charlatans and crooks. I always thought that the MPs expenses scandal was a grossly underrated source of Brown's electoral fate. The financial crash rather overshadowed the terrible political damage that it did to Brown's government and his party and I think Partygate was the key moment in sealing this current government's fate. The sense of betrayal and loss of trust. Fatal stuff politically. The voters turned. The Tory government's ongoing association with corruption and sleaze is punching this gigantic bruise. Partygate was the point when the polls turned dramatically bad for the Tories though, not the Truss/Kwarteng pantomime, albeit that did turbo-boost the Labour lead for a while. The lead was already well into double digits by then anyway. A bit where it is now in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 30, 2023 11:52:45 GMT
crossbat11 and steve I make a prediction to help things along. Within three to four years from now, “vanilla-extract”, “personality-vacuum” Starmer will be widely acclaimed as the most charismatic leader the country has seen in living memory. I was a little dismissive and unduly sarcastic in my response to your original post on the subject of political leadership and the significance of the personal stamp that leaders can bring to affairs of state and party. Whilst I was in disagreement with what you said, it deserved a better response than the one I gave. Apologies. In terms of the argument you were making, I think you got too fixated with charisma. I actually agree with you that this can be a nebulous political attribute and very much in the eye of the beholder. It can be a quality bestowed retrospectively too. The aura of power can sprinkle stardust on the dullest of personalities, although some politicians do have more superficially appealing personas than others. Easy charm, fine oratorical skills etc My point was about the importance of a whole range of personal qualities of a political leader that can strongly influence the parties and governments they lead. They are often undesirable qualities too, or a dearth of good ones. Indecisiveness, weakness, impulsiveness, dishonesty etc. All political leaders are hugely influential in the way our democracy works. They influence the direction of the parties they lead and how successful they are electorally. Once in government they are crucial in many ways. If they weren't why is it that in recent years the Tories have clutched so many leadership straws in a desperate attempt to change their fortunes and reboot the government! I've always subscribed too to the idea that great men and women shape history. Your remarks certainly stung, but you owe me no apology. They were clearly not personal and they provoke further thought and analysis. But I cannot support the idea of ‘greatness’, some essential quality that some have and the great majority don’t. People have a set of values, competencies and experience (all changeable) which may equip them, more or less, for leadership in different situations. The situation and circumstances then slot the person into the role. For me, the case of the Tories you raise simply confirms this. Their situation is desperate and beyond repair; no appeal to ‘greatness’ can help them. A changed leader creates the illusion of situational change, without actually changing anything. domjg. Blair’s initial nickname was Bambi, conveying callowness and lack of depth. As the Labour government succeeded on so many levels (as it would have done under John Smith), so the nickname lost its resonance.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,798
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Dec 30, 2023 11:53:08 GMT
So, you don't think that the identity, political views and personality of a Prime Minister has got any relevance to the government he or she then goes on to lead? They are mere impotent playthings to be kicked around by MPs? We might as well consider the respective merits of glove puppets come general election time. In basic terms of power play, we have recently seen what happenes to PMs who cannot command a majority in parliament, which also means a big majority of their own party. They are indeed puppets. front men. Dont forget that in general at least, you only get to BE PM because you already have the support of the majority of the MPs, so the situation usually never arises that the two are pulling in different directions so we see any split. Yet in recent times, May, Johnson and then Truss were all despatched because they had fallen out with their MPs. Both lab and con recently suffered because the voting process for choosing the leader and hence PM ceased to be controlled by the MPs. But the point of a front man is to present an atractive public front. So it definitely does matter who does this. their task is to makes whatever the will of the MPs is, presentable. We do not have the US system, where the executive leader is separately elected. He can only stay in power by agreement of the MPs. We also saw recently parliament starting to bare its teeth when the executive refused to accept its verdict. Constitutionally power resides in the house of commons by a 1 man majority. Hmm. Difficult to disentangle the personal popularity of the person from automatic support, or detestation for the leader of one party. Although PMs often are more or less popular than their party, we also know for certain that if party x associates itself with policy y, then automatically supports of party x endorse policy y. But this is besides the point, that the MPs choose what they want to happen, and choose someone to be PM who can best deliver. Again, its very obvious how May and then Johnson were chosen to deliver certain things, and then ditched once they had performed, or failed to perform. The Thatcher government is today known as the Thatcher government. But who can say what it would have been called had they chosen someone else. Similarly, Blair only got the job because John Smith died. Smith would have won, and it would have been his personality cast as the victor leading labour back to power. Best I recall, he was already doing well, and who knows he might have achieved a win where Brown lost had he survived so long.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 30, 2023 11:56:26 GMT
Hmmmm. Not sure about some of this. Obviously big economic shocks usually damage the standing of the incumbents, whether deservedly so or not. If the problems can clearly be traced to government incompetence, as with the Truss/Kwarteng budget and the ERM fiasco, then it is especially damaging, but I think there are other, sometimes more subtle factors, that form a settled view about a government amongst the electorate. Put simply, people don't like being governed by charlatans and crooks. I always thought that the MPs expenses scandal was a grossly underrated source of Brown's electoral fate. The financial crash rather overshadowed the terrible political damage that it did to Brown's government and his party and I think Partygate was the key moment in sealing this current government's fate. The sense of betrayal and loss of trust. Fatal stuff politically. The voters turned. The Tory government's ongoing association with corruption and sleaze is punching this gigantic bruise. Partygate was the point when the polls turned dramatically bad for the Tories though, not the Truss/Kwarteng pantomime, albeit that did turbo-boost the Labour lead for a while. The lead was already well into double digits by then anyway. A bit where it is now in fact. Partygate put Labour into leads around the 10% mark (they were already leading by more modest amount), it was Truss that sent those leads into the high 20s, from which there has yet to be a recovery to partygate levels. Again this pattern is clear from the aggregated polling. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_electionI think the problem is that you are looking at the "scandal" type incidents that happen prior to a change of government and ignoring that lots of similar things happen in parliaments where the government goes on to win the subsequent GE. To illustrate the point, here are some things that happened during the 2010-19 period without preventing the Conservatives remaining in power: On 14 October 2011 Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox resigned from the Cabinet after he "mistakenly allowed the distinction between [his] personal interest and [his] government activities to become blurred" over his friendship with Adam Werritty. (He again served as a cabinet minister under Theresa May.) Conservative Party 'cash for access' scandal involving Peter Cruddas and Sarah Southern, March 2012. In April 2012, Conservative Party MP and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt came under pressure to resign as a result of his closeness to Rupert Murdoch's media empire and alleged corruption in dealing with Murdoch's bid for News Corporation's takeover of BSkyB. In October 2012, Andrew Mitchell resigned from his post as Chief Whip following allegations made about his conduct during an altercation with police at Downing Street on 19 September, the incident becoming known as "plebgate". In April 2014 Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary, resigned following pressure relating to the results of an investigation into her past expenses claims. In September 2015, Lord Ashcroft published a biography of David Cameron, which suggested that the then Prime Minister took drugs regularly and performed an "outrageous initiation ceremony" which involved inserting "a private part of his anatomy" into the mouth of a dead pig during his time in university. This became known as "piggate". It also led to questions about the Prime Minister's honesty with party donors' known tax statuses as Lord Ashcroft suggested he had openly discussed his non-domiciled status with him in 2009, earlier than previously thought. In 2017 the contaminated blood scandal, in which many haemophiliacs died from infected Factor medicine, hit the headlines and Parliament with allegations of an "industrial scale" criminal cover-up. MP Ken Clarke retracted remarks from his autobiography relating to the scandal and a public inquiry is now underway. The 2018 Windrush scandal, involving members of the Windrush generation being wrongly detained, deported, or threatened with deportation which caused the resignation of then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Dec 30, 2023 12:18:52 GMT
This really needs to start happening on a grand scale now, regardless. It's nearly eight decades since the end of the second world war that propelled the USA into the position of military guarantor of the free world and it's not a role that any country would be willing to take on indefinitely. Japan also needs to shed it's pacifistic constitution and tool up, possibly becoming a nuclear power. You know what? This really depresses me. What depresses me more is that, not only in the UK, but, around the world, it is you, not me, that is in the majority on this...and likely a very sizeable majority. It is me that is the outlier here. I am not a pacifist, I am not saying we should lay down our arms, what I am saying is that saying we should 'tool up' (which our would be adversaries would also do in response) is not a road we should run down. This is, to my mind, stacking up dominoes, should one fall, others come tumbling down....IMO, a factor in how WWI got started and a mistake we cannot afford to make. I fear that e may be sleepwalking into doing so. As for Japan (or any other country for that matter) joining the nuclear club, surely we need to make that club smaller, not larger. I have long been for ridding these weapons from the face of the earth for one sumple reason - as long as they exist, someone, somewhere, will eventually use them. Hopefully after I'm long gone if it ever happens...but, the only way to ensure it doesn't happen is to get rid of them. Deterrence only has to fail once to plunge any survivors into pain and darkness....and that's IF the human race, long term, does actually survive such an event.
|
|