I hope your decision to foreswear the Guardian catches on. Everything about that prissy, self-preening collection of luvvies turns my stomach. It has been a thoroughly malign influence on a whole generation whose lack of a proper education has left them vulnerable to the airhead posturing which is the Guardian's daily diet.

And while you're about it, why not cut out the Pink'un (the Independent) too? A journal that boasts about having Fisk and Ahlibi Brown amongst its contributors has nothing much to contribute to public wellbeing.

Well put, Michael. Methinks it's no accident that the Grauniad and the Indie have the lowest cirulations of the British national newspapers.

I stopped reading the Guardian in summer 2002, and I have friends who have also abandoned it recently. I detest it.

I read the Times everyday and the FT most days. Gove, Hames, Kaletsky, etc are serious minds with some capacity for moral judgement. Toynbee, Younge, Monbiot, etc are intellectual pygmies whose idiocy is only outstripped by their relativism. The pervasiveness of Guardian non-thought among my fellow students is truly scary, given that they represent the future of this country. How much cultural relativism and moral nihilism can a free society withstand before it implodes? If an ever-increasing section of our population is unwilling to categorically believe in the superiority of our liberal democratic way of life (on the grounds that such a belief is somehow racist or imperialist), let alone confront external threats to it, what will sustain our institutions?

Strange.

I'd have thought that a if commenter were to react to an act of terror and its aftermath by blaming the victims' compatriots, friends and families, labelling them "useful idiots" and denying that they have the right to vote for whomsoever they choose, then that would be a foul, nauseating and beneath-contempt response.

And I'd've thought that if a commenter were to react to someone who reacted as above by attacking their worldview and outlook, and suggesting a more peaceful alternative, then that would be a pretty reasonable (even if a little naive in parts) response.

Obviously I'll never get to be a proper neocon...

Is it not time that the Guardians financial base was question,after all seems to have the sole rights to being the New Labour Jobmart?

Andrew Sullivan is clearly back on form . I love the Guardian's idea of a conference. Who would they invite ? Perhaps Clare Short as the chair. An opening address by Hans Blix would set the tone nicely. The International contingent could incude Kim Jong-Il, the Mullahs, and Bashar Assad. Obviously Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu for the closing address and sing-song. Would the first resolution condemn America or Israel ? George Galloway, Robin Cook, Max Hastings and Michael Mansfield could put out the chairs, and Jenny Tonge could make the latte. Security by Hamas. Venue : Neville Chamberlain House, Farringdon Rd .

Glad to see the Guardian is being recognised for the pompous drivel it is, dont waste my time with it any more.

It's interesting to take the first few sentences of John B's post, make the reaction twenty times more hysterical and hate filled and you have the Guardian's response to 911.

So it's wrong when the Guardian does it, but OK when Sullivan and Phillips do?

How does one become eligible for this automatic moral exemption - can I apply? Can the Guardian?

By applying a spurious moral equivalence, John B, you debar yourself from the moral exemption you claim to seek. The Gurdian is wrong on the facts of the situation; Sullivan and Phillips are right. It is not possible to draw correct moral conclusions from incorrect data.

Nonsense: factual correctness has no direct bearing on morality.

The Guardian believes 9/11 was triggered by US imperialism; whether or not this is the case, it was unseemly of the newspaper to react to the attacks with blame rather than sympathy.

Mel and Andy believe the Spanish are cowardly terrorist lackeys; whether or not this is the case, it was unseemly of them to react to the attacks with blame rather than sympathy.

My views are closer to believing the Guardian's claim to be correct and believing Mel and Andy to be incorrect; yours are the opposite. This is not relevant, whichever of us is right: to be mistaken is not a moral failing.

John B--
You are right that to be mistaken is not in itself a moral failing. To be willfully and aggressively mistaken, on the other hand, may prove to be not 'merely' a moral failing, but an existential one.

The statement ‘factual correctness has no direct bearing upon morality’ tells us more about the left than they would like us to know. It is not about realties it is about feelings. To engage in realities is to care, and one of the biggest mistakes you can make in politics is to believe that the Left care about anything other than their own feelings. Do you think that supporters of a secular religion that has impoverished, starved, repressed, and murdered millions of people in the last century are interested in reality? All you can do is wait for them to grow-up and not listen to them when they give you all the reasons they can think of – free everything, oceans made of lemonade, a land rich in milk and honey - why you ought to give them control over your life.

I dont know if you watched Question Time tonight, but it was the most disgraceful show of cowardice and moral confusion by the panel including Malcolm Rifkind, who was frankly hopeless.

The only person who spoke 50% sense on the subject of Iraq and the War on Terror was Nick Cohen.

In particular Jeremy Clarkson said that he didnt want to be blown up just to make an Iraqi's life better. Contrast that with his late father in law, who won the finest VC of WW2, for exactly the opposite sentiment.

Fools!

Don't you realize that The Guardian is in fact playing a cunning Zionist game? They allow sensible and rational people like Stephen Byers, Emanuele Ottolenghi and Benny Morris to speak for the Zionist entity, while Clubland bigots like Max Hastings and frothing shrills like Ghada Karmi represent the martyrs of Palestine(http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1171705,00.html). Thus they keep the British people enslaved to Jewish World Capitalist Bolshevism. Ha ha!

I didn't agree with Freedland entirely, but surely he's a right to ask questions, and he also made some salient points about how the right treated the elections. All the "victory for Bin Laden" nonsense was not only misjudged but also extremely insensitive.

Does a nation only vote on terror? Are we to be denied our right to vote for who the damn well we please simply because of the threat of terrorist action? Would it be preferable if we could only vote for the parties that Pollard and his like would prefer us to?

I don't agree with much of what I read in the paper (and I read most of the papers every day) but I think that at least it asks questions. After all, some of the most convincingly argued support for the war came from Cohen, Aaronovitch etc. These were the people who brought members of the antiwar left on side, not the rabid screechings of the gungho right.

But of course Pollard couldn't give up taking other "worthless trash" like the Independent - another paper that also questions the Iraq war and opposes such glib hatemongering as Sullivan, Phillips, Steyn and the like have trotted out recently.

After all, they, are prepared to pay him.

>It is not possible to draw correct moral conclusions from incorrect data.

Does anyone draw moral conclusions from data? I thought morals were immament.

>In particular Jeremy Clarkson said that he didnt want to be blown up just to make an Iraqi's life better. Contrast that with his late father in law, who won the finest VC of WW2, for exactly the opposite sentiment.

Jeremy Clarkson's dad wanted "to be blown up just to make an Iraqi's life better"? An unusual sentiment, and one I associate more with suicide bombers than WWII heroes. I also didn't know a) that VCs were handed out for sentiments, and b) that VCs were ranked. Who won the second finest then?

I can no longer stand this nauseating website. I only came here to laugh at his horse anyway.

The point I was trying to make is that J Clarkson's Father in Law did actually think it was worth being blown up to defend the freedom of others during WW2, and hence went on to serve courageously.

Jeremy Clarkson seems to think it is OK to turn a blind eye the gassing of the Kurds, the mass graves, the torture and terror that was the Saddam Regime. Its all fine for him as long as he isnt in danger - stuff the Iraqi's, I want to watch TopGear undisturbed.....

Glad to hear it - I stopped reading the Guardian many years ago.

I also never advertise jobs in that rag.

As for the Indy - what a misnomer!

I was visiting my mother at my sister's today, and actually looked at some copies of the Independent for the first time in a long time. I was astonished - it isn't a newspaper any more. On at least two occasions the front page was devoted to a diatribe about the evils of Bush, Blair and America. There was simply no news - just an hysterical opinion piece (or, in one case, an appallingly sycophantic puff piece on Kerry that implies they will be completely astonished when he loses every state). Do readers not read this stuff, or do they just have no conception of facts in the real world?

Grr.

1) I'm not on the left: I believe in free markets, minimal state invasion in everyday life, and supported the Iraq and Afghan invasions. At the same time, I don't believe that it's terribly helpful to reduce the world's problems exclusively to Bad People Who Must Be Smitten (even though many of them certainly are caused or worsened by BPWMBSes...)

2) Factual correctness simply -doesn't- affect the morality of your decision, unless (as Alene points out) you wilfully ignore the facts to avoid challenging your worldview. People with strong ideological beliefs - to the left or the right - are frequently guilty of this failing.

However, where this isn't the case, it isn't an issue. If I believe a convicted IRA bomber to be a terrible man, and then find that he was erroneously convicted and therefore change my moral judgement to one of him not being a terrible man, then I'm guilty of no moral failings.

>>I don't believe that it's terribly helpful to reduce the world's problems exclusively to Bad People Who Must Be Smitten

But that's a false caricature, albeit one in worryingly wide circulation. The Bush doctrine says that a government cannot be neutral about terrorist organisations (though it may be unengaged if the issue does not arise within its borders, or financial reach). If you tolerate a terrorist organisation, the Bush doctrine says you have chosen that side. In practise, they have been even more discriminating - you have to actively encourage terrorist groups, without any element of plausible deniability, and at the same time thwart efforts of the US to address the threat. One you apply all those filters, the number of targets shrinks enormously. If one then acts on the first sensibly engageable target (Iraq), one finds that some targets begin to fall in line (Libya), while others at least try to dissemble a little more convincinly (Syria).

I actually agree with you re Bush; while I find many of his domestic policies loathsome, I'm still open on the success of his foreign policy. The people I was criticising are those who (as per the beginning of this thread) seem to think that Spain falls into the latter category as well, merely for threatening to withdraw from taking part in the smiting. Mr Bush, thankfully, isn't one of them.

handjobs com cora @X@ creamed quality handjobs @X@ handjob haven ginger @X@ azjatki piercing @X@ rucham w cyce @X@ darmo nagie amatorki @X@ ejaculaton tera bond @X@ learn to squart @X@ ejacluation dana @X@ anime busty boobie thumb @X@ bigboobs videos @X@ milf melons freeporn @X@ free 18nastki na zywo @X@ zajebiste cipeczki trailer @X@ filmyporno vids @X@ deck handsex video @X@ great tug job clips @X@ deck hjob freeporn @X@ filmporno piepszyc @X@ ruchac latynosi @X@ monika nudes @X@

美女视频录像
激情自拍录像
三级片
免费成人电影
免费黄色电影
免费激情电影
免费色情电影
免费性交电影
免费性爱电影
三级片
美女视频录像
人体艺术图辑
黄色网站
色情
色情网站
成人网站
三级片
三级片
三级片
三级片
三级片
三级片
黄色网站
激情小电影
激情小电影
艺术激情享受
激情小电影
日本强奸电影
郎裸体图库
林心如拍黄的图片
性生活片电影在线
性感丝袜美女图片
玉蒲团之玉女心经
十八淫书
色兔妹妹图片
全球十大禁片bt下载
性交裸体图
亚洲成人淫民网
妹妹厕所走光图片
视频聊天
成人电影
黄色电影
激情电影
色情电影
性交电影
性爱电影
免费电影网
免费在线电影
看免费电影
免费电影网站
最新韩国电影
两性生活
性教育片
免费电影神话
最新电影无极
免费激情电影
免费黄色电影
最新电影下载
成人性爱电影
美女图片
美女走光
美腿图片
三级片
强奸电影
美女祼体图片
黄色电影下载
免费色情电影
性感美女图片
漂亮妹妹图片
做爱图片
美少女
幼女图片
舒淇写真集舒淇全裸照
偷窥电影偷窥小说偷窥图片
美女被强歼小说
巨乳小电影免费下载
美女厕所偷窥
视频mm自拍艳舞
仙人洞美女
一个馒头引发的血案
神雕侠侣
少妇
美女 美女图
明星露点写真
裸体写真 明星裸体写真
人体艺术写真
美臀
女人图片 性感美女图片
女性乳房 女性乳房写真
女人屁股 女性屁股 偷拍
偷拍女人的图片
18 贴 图 台湾 成人
男同性恋写真图片
午夜天堂成人小说-午夜天堂成人电影
台湾网络小说 台湾网络电影
小龙女与尹志平
图片性闻
美女洗澡小游戏 美女洗澡偷拍电影
艳舞
成人图库
女明星图片
丁字裤
免费电影在线看
免费电视连续剧收看
美臀 翘臀 图片
少妇展穴
色影无忌
三级片
性感美女床上自拍
三级片
免费成人电影
免费黄色电影
免费色情电影
免费成人电影
免费色情电影
免费黄色电影
免费成人电影
免费黄色电影
免费黄色电影
免费色情电影
免费色情电影
床第间的正点自拍
露点图片
女性最易献身时刻
自拍DV
偷拍录象
美女诱惑写真自拍短片
人体艺术另类
成人小说
黄色网站
成人论坛
成人图片
走光
三级片
视频录像激情视频
18dy-脱轨电影,tuogui
性感美女床上自拍
色情影音-激情写真media情色
激动电影-18dy
18dy-激动电影
免费小电影
性电影
免费成人电影下载
免费电影在线观看
宽带电影
经典电影下载
免费恐怖电影
免费影片下载
免费影院
最新大片
十八电影网
美女写真
人体艺术
日本av电影
情色电影
同志电影下载
激情视频下载
明星露点图片
写真电影
阴部图片
乳房图片
人体写真
美国大片
免费成人影片
在线看电影
成人网站
乳房 图 奸淫
极品嫩穴图片
美女插穴
黄色小说
在线激情电影
性教育电影
两性电影
看电影的网站
免费看电影
免费在线电影
免费电影下载

ass trafic vids* ass trafic xxx* aged mature babes* ah mature video* pictures of veronica from bigtitsroundasses* polish boobs* all internall nicole* all internall old trailers* shyra* asstit* busty bang jana* busty blonde gangbanged*