NJS

The correlation worldwide between education and religiosity would suggest otherwise. The US is a bit of an exception overall admittedly but within the country the correlation applies.

The last time anything vaguely left wing was mooted was by Foot and the major factor then was more the Falklands than any kind of mass rejection of ideas. As I've said before the infamous manifesto was okay in hindsight though I accept unilateral disarmament was a big faux pas at the time.

It was much lower in the late seventies but has massively increased with 35 years of tory policies.

Tried to tell you before that gdp means nothing when inequality persists. All "growth" does is benefit those at the top and does not make the country in any sense "better off" because the extra wealth is either held or offshored rather than spent.

I think there's been a shift towards his thinking on nuclear weapons and away from yours - cock waving aside, I think a lot of people realise it's not the 80s any more. (in reply to Renton)

What Osborne has done is the equivalent of McLaren saying we don't need to sign anyone in January as they've sat down an worked out the points we're going to get an as it's 40, we'll be alright. If the increase in the public finances doesn't happen he'll be completely screwed.

And it was a lie which Cameron has admitted since.

Hence my opinion that anyone that religious should be barred from any responsible job.

Trying to get a dig in about their new best friends but failed completely.

The killers would only have been thinking in terms of punishment rather than deterrent but I'd propose that the original purpose of the concept of blasphemy is control and power. However that's the entire point of religion in the first place so it's a bit circular.

I don't see how the Hebdo killers relate to "power" - that was just religion inspired lunacy.

I think we're discussing all of the factors - the argument is over the proportions different people attribute them to the whole. I'm as anti religion as you but I don't think it's as simple as just saying "Islam" without qualification.

Watched another 5 last night and it's fucking brilliant.

I agree on the difference but maintain there is some similarity - funnily enough I agree it's the religious underpinning that's the difference.

Allardyce obviously.

I don't think anyone is claiming moral equivalency - just pointing out cuntishness on both sides. There are parallels for me with Ireland - nothing justified the IRA's actions morally but to not point out 400 years of British cuntishness as a contributory factor would be a little amiss.

I'm halfway through the second and find it a bit too slow for my liking - I don't mind detailed story telling normally but just think there are a few storylines/characters I'm not interested in - especially his in-laws. I do know that Saul is around the corner in the next couple who's supposed to be a good character so I'm looking forward to that.

I'm continuing to watch Breaking Bad and whilst I'm enjoying its brutality and humourous edge, I'm missing the full on darkness of Dexter so have been casting around to fill that void. I'm enjoying Mr Robot (5 eps in) but I think I've found a contender today - just watched the first episode of Jessica Jones and tbh I was expecting some superhero fluff but fucking hell was I wrong - best new show I've seen in ages - I hope it continues to the same standard.

A lot of American attitudes on guns, patriotic fervour and religious moral base are born of it being a very young country in civilisation terms - not the thousands of years you mention which I agree applies to European attitudes.

Might as well stick an SD sale sticker on his shirt.

It's the "by mistake" that I think we're arguing about. Nobody disputes "genuine" collateral damage is unfortunate but acceptable but as the examples here and in history show the US has a poor record of indifference, incompetence and relish when it comes to civilian deaths. The precision of modern weapons could make strikes less likely to go astray - unfortunately the way they're being used actually means the opposite.

I think the main thing that's stopped them using nukes since WWII is fear of proliferation rather than morality given the numbers killed by conventional bombing in SE Asia especially. I'd also be worried about the possible election of Trump or Carson. I know its very unlikely but you'd have to rely on a lot of sensible buffers to protect the world from their morality.

The point we're making is they make no attempt to avoid it and in most cases relish it. There were disgusting comments made about the 16 year old HF mentioned along the lines of "well he would probably grow up to be a terrorist so no loss" which I think were made by Obama himself. It's not a new thing either - have you ever read the story of how Nixon and Kissinger ordered the bombing of Cambodia after a being out on the town?

The hospital thing smacks of deliberation by the looks of things. I think Obama deserves credit for Healthcare but not closing guantanamo, prosecuting whistle blowers and killing more people with drones than bush would have dreamt of taints his presidency. I also think Blair and Bush both had a real sense of doing God's work.

I've been with you up to now but completely disagree here. The US has a yee-hah approach to modern warfare with drones etc that Bill Hicks described perfectly well after the first gulf war. I've always thought they invaded Afghanistan out of pure blood lust and only turned to Iraq after the former proved too easy (initially of course) and their appetite for blood, even with a so called liberal president shows no sign of abating. Shrugging your shoulders or down right denial of collateral damage is to me just as bad as terrorism - I see the parallel in the death penalty argument - I think states should hold themselves to higher moral standards than knackers with AK47s. And that's before we mention the way Bush's and Blair's faith draws another parallel with our previous discussions.