Your favourite election memories

[lyonhibs]

Who knows, this one may throw up a few new ones, but with the wonders of YouTube at our disposal, and to remember happier/funnier times for the parties we support, feel free to post your favourite election night memories from the past here.

Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, SNP etc etc videos welcome :greengrin

Try to keep political debate out of this thread, everyone has their own reasons/justifications for their beliefs and they can be debated on any number of threads elsewhere.

For me, it has to be 1997, not because I had developed much of an idea of party politics at the age of 12, but because of the sheer look of delirous delight on my mum and, especially, my Dad's face as the results came in. As civil servants, they had both had to work for a Government that they didn't support or believe in, and particularly for my Dad, who had to "promote" the infernally unfair Poll Tax as part of his job, take verbal abuse about it day in, day out and all the while absolutely despised it, May 1st 1997 was a great evening. Lots of champagne and partying long into the wee hours at Casa Lyon Hibs that night.

We've still got the video somewhere in the house, and I don't think we'll ever see an election night like it for a very long time.

Favourite moments:

YouTube - 1997 General Election - The Portillo Moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVvWE6V9ulE)

and of course, the brilliant:

http://www.newsplayer.com/1997-general-election-david-mellor-loses-putney-seat-video (http://www.newsplayer.com/1997-general-election-david-mellor-loses-putney-seat-video)

Wait for it to load up and come round. The name of the link should give it away :greengrin

[Hibs Class]

Every election as a child - my school was a polling station so got a free day off

[marinello59]

'97 election. We were out all day getting the vote out then headed to a function suite at Pittodrie after the polls shut to watch the results coming in. I know it is hard to believe now but the sense that it was a new beginning for the country was exhilarating that night. As mentioned already the Portillo moment was priceless. Finally got to bed around about seven in the morning in a more tham merry state.

[Pretty Boy]

1997 for me.

It shows just how popular Labour and Tony Blair were back then. The mood for change was infectous. Whilst Labour are pretty unpopular now there is absolutely nothing like the landslide of support for the Tories now that there was for Labour back then. The Portillo moment still brings a smile to my face now(despite the fact he doesn't see that bad a guy on This Week). I was fairly young at the time but remember the scenes as Blair walked down Downing Street. The general feeling of hope was everywhere. The fact the Tories were completely whitewashed from Scotland was extra special.

[Calvin]

A bit young or '97, but I remember watching this interview live.

YouTube - George Galloway vs Jeremy Paxman Election 2005 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5tunBGmDQ)

It's my Mum's constituency (she lives in Aldgate though, you could never tell it was the 'poorest constituency in London :greengrin) so I had a special interest in that seat and it was such a great result, undermined totally by that fud Paxman.

[Hainan Hibs]

A bit young or '97, but I remember watching this interview live.

YouTube - George Galloway vs Jeremy Paxman Election 2005 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5tunBGmDQ)

It's my Mum's constituency (she lives in Aldgate though, you could never tell it was the 'poorest constituency in London :greengrin) so I had a special interest in that seat and it was such a great result, undermined totally by that fud Paxman.

Paxman showing himself up there as the absolute plonker he is.

[Pretty Boy]

Paxman showing himself up there as the absolute plonker he is.

To be fair he only pointed out that George Galloway had exploited racial tensions for his own political ends. In the proccess defeating one of the few balck, female candidates.

What Galloway did in that election was no better than the BNP IMO.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It was when Alex Fletcher got the boot from Edinburgh Central.

[Hainan Hibs]

To be fair he only pointed out that George Galloway had exploited racial tensions for his own political ends. In the proccess defeating one of the few balck, female candidates.

What Galloway did in that election was no better than the BNP IMO.

Aye fair enough. Probably could've went with a better first question though.

[Calvin]

To be fair he only pointed out that George Galloway had exploited racial tensions for his own political ends. In the proccess defeating one of the few balck, female candidates.

What Galloway did in that election was no better than the BNP IMO.

Even if it was the asian community that propelled him to victory there - it was absolutely nothing to do with the displacement of the sitting MP that she was black.

[Pretty Boy]

Even if it was the asian community that propelled him to victory there - it was absolutely nothing to do with the displacement of the sitting MP that she was black.

Of course it wasn't. The point is though that in his so called attempts to represent minorities he actually forced out a prominent minority candidate who would have won that seat had Galloway not targeted it on the sole basis that it was an area of high racial and religous tension.

[LiverpoolHibs]

To be fair he only pointed out that George Galloway had exploited racial tensions for his own political ends. In the proccess defeating one of the few balck, female candidates.

What Galloway did in that election was no better than the BNP IMO.

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense.

What 'racial tension' did he exploit? The seat was targetted because it was the seat/area in which Respect had polled best in the 2004 European elections, the 2004 London Assembly elections, various council elections and because the sitting M.P. had supported the Iraq War. That's what political parties do. Her being black and female is completely and utterly irrelevant.

It may be your opinion that what he did was 'no better than the BNP' but that opinion is ludicrous.

[Pretty Boy]

Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense.

What 'racial tension' did he exploit? The seat was targetted because it was the seat/area in which Respect had polled best in the 2004 European elections, the 2004 London Assembly elections, various council elections and because the sitting M.P. had supported the Iraq War. That's what political parties do. Her being black and female is completely and utterly irrelevant.

It may be your opinion that what he did was 'no better than the BNP' but that opinion is ludicrous.

So to be clear you don't believe Galloway targetted that seat on the basis that it had a large Muslim population amongst whom feelings were running high due to the war in Iraq?

That, IMO, is exploting tensions in the area for his own ends. It's also interesting to note how little he actually bothered to turn up in parliament or take part in votes after he was elected.

[LiverpoolHibs]

So to be clear you don't believe Galloway targetted that seat on the basis that it had a large Muslim population amongst whom feelings were running high due to the war in Iraq?

That, IMO, is exploting tensions in the area for his own ends. It's also interesting to note how little he actually bothered to turn up in parliament or take part in votes after he was elected.

On the last bit - agreed, I'm certainly not a devotee of Galloway or anything. I think in general he's a tit who has also done some remarkable and laudable things.

Respect was largely founded on the back of opposition to the Iraq War and the Stop the War Coalition and Galloway fought the seat in which support for Respect was at its highest as indicated by various election results - a lot of this support (though by no means all) was drawn from the local Muslim population angered by the Iraq War. But so what? Why is that a bad thing?

'Exploiting racial and religious tension' implies that there was tension between groups in the constituency which he took advantage of and fanned the flames of to his own benefit. That is a slur and is completely counterfactual.

[hibsbollah]

On the last bit - agreed, I'm certainly not a devotee of Galloway or anything. I think in general he's a tit who has also done some remarkable and laudable things.

Respect was largely founded on the back of opposition to the Iraq War and the Stop the War Coalition and Galloway fought the seat in which support for Respect was at its highest as indicated by various election results - a lot of this support (though by no means all) was drawn from the local Muslim population angered by the Iraq War. But so what? Why is that a bad thing?

'Exploiting racial and religious tension' implies that there was tension between groups in the constituency which he took advantage of and fanned the flames of to his own benefit. That is a slur and is completely counterfactual.

He made some derogatory comments about his Labour opponent Oona King which were clearly pointing up her Jewish faith. I remember hearing it on the radio on the time and thinking 'Galloway, you are a ****'. He's an outrageous twat and doesnt do the Left any favours.

[LiverpoolHibs]

He made some derogatory comments about his Labour opponent Oona King which were clearly pointing up her Jewish faith. I remember hearing it on the radio on the time and thinking 'Galloway, you are a ****'. He's an outrageous twat and doesnt do the Left any favours.

Link?

Appalling if so.

[hibsbollah]

Link?

Appalling if so.

Don't have the link but i remember it pretty clearly. It maybe wasnt explicitly anti-semitic but he didnt leave anyone in any doubt that she was a Jew. Had no relevance to the debate and the intention was obvious.

[One Day Soon]

Don't have the link but i remember it pretty clearly. It maybe wasnt explicitly anti-semitic but he didnt leave anyone in any doubt that she was a Jew. Had no relevance to the debate and the intention was obvious.

He really showed his true colours in that campaign.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Don't have the link but i remember it pretty clearly. It maybe wasnt explicitly anti-semitic but he didnt leave anyone in any doubt that she was a Jew. Had no relevance to the debate and the intention was obvious.

I can't find any reference to an incident like that anywhere. Which, if it's true, is surprising considering the amount of time and effort the likes of Nick Cohen spent on attempted hatchet jobs.

[Betty Boop]

I've never heard GG making anti-semetic comments. He is very much against Zionism, however that is different to being an anti-semite.

GG tackles accusations of antisemetism.

YouTube - George Galloway + Accusation of Anti-Semitism = Fireworks! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO68iEIfPfw&feature=related)

[hibsbollah]

I've never heard GG making anti-semetic comments. He is very much against Zionism, however that is different to being an anti-semite.

GG tackles accusations of antisemetism.

YouTube - George Galloway + Accusation of Anti-Semitism = Fireworks! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO68iEIfPfw&feature=related)


He may very well not be an anti-semite. But he'd use any mechanism to gain power, and IMO he did in the Bethnal Green campaign.

[steakbake]

Great to see a Green in the Parliament!

Bad news is that Scotland stays with the way things were in 2005. We're so politically limited.

[hibsbollah]

Great to see a Green in the Parliament!



:agree: She's excellent as well. Heard her on the radio and she was quite inspirational. Not your normal yoghurt eating sandal wearing green at all:greengrin

[One Day Soon]

:agree: She's excellent as well. Heard her on the radio and she was quite inspirational. Not your normal yoghurt eating sandal wearing green at all:greengrin

Got to disagree. I think she's your fairly typical holier-than-thou right-on plank. Heard and seen her in various debates and its always the same pious and pie-in-the sky stuff. At least the odd yoghurt eating sandal wearing greens are walking the walk after a fashion. She's exactly the kind who says they want to tackle carbon emissions but then opposes nuclear AND wind farms wherever they are proposed locally. Hey - she could be Nat!

And I will bet right now that she will achieve precisely nothing in this parliament - which means her getting elected is only a breakthrough in the sense that she got elected, there will be no consequence to it whatsoever.

[hibsbollah]

Got to disagree. I think she's your fairly typical holier-than-thou right-on plank. Heard and seen her in various debates and its always the same pious and pie-in-the sky stuff. At least the odd yoghurt eating sandal wearing greens are walking the walk after a fashion. She's exactly the kind who says they want to tackle carbon emissions but then opposes nuclear AND wind farms wherever they are proposed locally. Hey - she could be Nat!

And I will bet right now that she will achieve precisely nothing in this parliament - which means her getting elected is only a breakthrough in the sense that she got elected, there will be no consequence to it whatsoever.

I often wonder when it was that 'holier', 'pious' and 'do gooder' became pejorative terms.

[One Day Soon]

I often wonder when it was that 'holier', 'pious' and 'do gooder' became pejorative terms.

Holier isn't pejorative, holier-than-thou is.

Pious has been pejorative since the writings of the Bible.

Do gooder is trickier, but I think I will randomly attach that to Esther Rantzen and 'That's Life'.

Collectively I'm thinking these terms take life about the time of the foundation of the SDP. And then turbo charged by the growth of the likes of Friends of the Earth.

[hibsbollah]

Holier isn't pejorative, holier-than-thou is.

Pious has been pejorative since the writings of the Bible.

Do gooder is trickier, but I think I will randomly attach that to Esther Rantzen and 'That's Life'.

Collectively I'm thinking these terms take life about the time of the foundation of the SDP. And then turbo charged by the growth of the likes of Friends of the Earth.

You're wrong; piety and pious are not pejorative.

Lets examine your previous post; all youve managed to attack her with is apparent 'plankness' (very good, not really anything of substance there). Next 'She's exactly the kind who says they want to tackle carbon emissions but then opposes nuclear AND wind farms wherever they are proposed locally'. So has she actually done this or is she just the 'kind' of person who would do this? 'pious, pie in the sky, holier than thou'...Sounds like you object to her because she wants to make the world a better place. isnt that the whole point of a politician?

Your final sentence can be condensed to 'shes not going to achieve anything', which a)you cant possibly predict and b) could be thrown at any politician.

[One Day Soon]

You're wrong; piety and pious are not pejorative.

Lets examine your previous post; all youve managed to attack her with is apparent 'plankness' (very good, not really anything of substance there). Next 'She's exactly the kind who says they want to tackle carbon emissions but then opposes nuclear AND wind farms wherever they are proposed locally'. So has she actually done this or is she just the 'kind' of person who would do this? 'pious, pie in the sky, holier than thou'...Sounds like you object to her because she wants to make the world a better place. isnt that the whole point of a politician?

Your final sentence can be condensed to 'shes not going to achieve anything', which a)you cant possibly predict and b) could be thrown at any politician.

Pious:

The Bible and Pharisees. Numerous other Biblical references too. The term is of course used non-pejoratively too.

Plank:

Pejorative term for someone for whom you have little regard. I think I've made it clear I have no regard for this pious, self-serving, utterly irrelevant waste of political space. She has been and is an MEP - a political position of dubious value - and all this has done is provide the Green Party with a nice political platform at public expense to spout their usual 'if only we could leave the planet to the rabbits everything would be so much better' garbage. And since when did you become the 'no posts other than those with evidence' police. Aren't people allowed opinions? Actually that's quite aposite because where 'discussion' with the drawn-faced humorless drones which usually constitute Lentillista groups such as the Greens is concerned there is only one truth - theirs.

'She's exactly the kind who says they want to tackle carbon emissions but then opposes nuclear AND wind farms wherever they are proposed locally'. So has she actually done this or is she just the 'kind' of person who would do this?

Both. Completely opposed to nuclear despite the fact that the guru of the environmental movement - James Lovelock - says otherwise. Hilariously in 2008 used her position as an MEP to try and tell the Bulgarians what they should be doing with their planning policies over the proposal for 28 wind farms with 200 turbines they wanted to build because of its relationshp to a 'vital roosting and foraging site for birds'. That's right Caroline, its important that some do-gooder Green MEP for the South East of England should spend her time trying to interfere with Bulgarian domestic planning policy in order to OPPOSE new wind farms.

Sounds like you object to her because she wants to make the world a better place. isnt that the whole point of a politician?

I object to her because I regard her as a complete poseur. Anyone can make a political career and a very nice living out of posing as a radical when they know that they will never be in a position to have to actually implement their policies, take difficult decisions and deal with reality. (see Lib Dems) all you do is spout purist cant and wait for the masses to cheer. It doesn't actually help anyone except themselves though. Politics isn't just showbiz for ugly people, its also status for stupid people too.

In my view politicians should be people who are willing to place public service before self, who want to leave the world a better place than they find it, who are capable of dealing with world as it is and not just as they wish it would be and who are capable of simultaneously raising the bar so that they and we aspire to high achievement while also dealing with the mundanity, compromise and tough decision making required in running things day to day. Her party, in my opinion, fails this test.

Your final sentence can be condensed to 'shes not going to achieve anything', which a)you cant possibly predict and b) could be thrown at any politician.

Yes I can and do possibly predict it. She will be completely irrelevant to the running of the country, the passing of legislation and the development of policy. She is one MP in a parliament of 650 odd.

It could be thrown at any individual politician and often is. That is why political parties, political platforms and movements and electoral systems matter. If you are a single Lib Dem MP in parliament you are largely pointless. If however you are part of a group of sixty or so you are much more relevant, not least in the context of the need for a coalition - providing that is you are able to either remember or discover some principles during the pre-coalition discussions. But even being a party doesn't help if you are essentially composed of unworkable and narrow policies.

[hibsbollah]

Pious:

The Bible and Pharisees. Numerous other Biblical references too. The term is of course used non-pejoratively too.

Plank:

Pejorative term for someone for whom you have little regard. I think I've made it clear I have no regard for this pious, self-serving, utterly irrelevant waste of political space. She has been and is an MEP - a political position of dubious value - and all this has done is provide the Green Party with a nice political platform at public expense to spout their usual 'if only we could leave the planet to the rabbits everything would be so much better' garbage. And since when did you become the 'no posts other than those with evidence' police. Aren't people allowed opinions? Actually that's quite aposite because where 'discussion' with the drawn-faced humorless drones which usually constitute Lentillista groups such as the Greens is concerned there is only one truth - theirs.

'She's exactly the kind who says they want to tackle carbon emissions but then opposes nuclear AND wind farms wherever they are proposed locally'. So has she actually done this or is she just the 'kind' of person who would do this?

Both. Completely opposed to nuclear despite the fact that the guru of the environmental movement - James Lovelock - says otherwise. Hilariously in 2008 used her position as an MEP to try and tell the Bulgarians what they should be doing with their planning policies over the proposal for 28 wind farms with 200 turbines they wanted to build because of its relationshp to a 'vital roosting and foraging site for birds'. That's right Caroline, its important that some do-gooder Green MEP for the South East of England should spend her time trying to interfere with Bulgarian domestic planning policy in order to OPPOSE new wind farms.

Sounds like you object to her because she wants to make the world a better place. isnt that the whole point of a politician?

I object to her because I regard her as a complete poseur. Anyone can make a political career and a very nice living out of posing as a radical when they know that they will never be in a position to have to actually implement their policies, take difficult decisions and deal with reality. (see Lib Dems) all you do is spout purist cant and wait for the masses to cheer. It doesn't actually help anyone except themselves though. Politics isn't just showbiz for ugly people, its also status for stupid people too.

In my view politicians should be people who are willing to place public service before self, who want to leave the world a better place than they find it, who are capable of dealing with world as it is and not just as they wish it would be and who are capable of simultaneously raising the bar so that they and we aspire to high achievement while also dealing with the mundanity, compromise and tough decision making required in running things day to day. Her party, in my opinion, fails this test.

Your final sentence can be condensed to 'shes not going to achieve anything', which a)you cant possibly predict and b) could be thrown at any politician.

Yes I can and do possibly predict it. She will be completely irrelevant to the running of the country, the passing of legislation and the development of policy. She is one MP in a parliament of 650 odd.

It could be thrown at any individual politician and often is. That is why political parties, political platforms and movements and electoral systems matter. If you are a single Lib Dem MP in parliament you are largely pointless. If however you are part of a group of sixty or so you are much more relevant, not least in the context of the need for a coalition - providing that is you are able to either remember or discover some principles during the pre-coalition discussions. But even being a party doesn't help if you are essentially composed of unworkable and narrow policies.

So by your logic, any politician not representing the status quo is an irrelevance?:faf:

So much incoherent babble in one post.

[--------]

Pious:

The Bible and Pharisees. Numerous other Biblical references too. The term is of course used non-pejoratively too.

Plank:

Pejorative term for someone for whom you have little regard. I think I've made it clear I have no regard for this pious, self-serving, utterly irrelevant waste of political space. She has been and is an MEP - a political position of dubious value - and all this has done is provide the Green Party with a nice political platform at public expense to spout their usual 'if only we could leave the planet to the rabbits everything would be so much better' garbage. And since when did you become the 'no posts other than those with evidence' police. Aren't people allowed opinions? Actually that's quite aposite because where 'discussion' with the drawn-faced humorless drones which usually constitute Lentillista groups such as the Greens is concerned there is only one truth - theirs.

'She's exactly the kind who says they want to tackle carbon emissions but then opposes nuclear AND wind farms wherever they are proposed locally'. So has she actually done this or is she just the 'kind' of person who would do this?

Both. Completely opposed to nuclear despite the fact that the guru of the environmental movement - James Lovelock - says otherwise. Hilariously in 2008 used her position as an MEP to try and tell the Bulgarians what they should be doing with their planning policies over the proposal for 28 wind farms with 200 turbines they wanted to build because of its relationshp to a 'vital roosting and foraging site for birds'. That's right Caroline, its important that some do-gooder Green MEP for the South East of England should spend her time trying to interfere with Bulgarian domestic planning policy in order to OPPOSE new wind farms.

Sounds like you object to her because she wants to make the world a better place. isnt that the whole point of a politician?

I object to her because I regard her as a complete poseur. Anyone can make a political career and a very nice living out of posing as a radical when they know that they will never be in a position to have to actually implement their policies, take difficult decisions and deal with reality. (see Lib Dems) all you do is spout purist cant and wait for the masses to cheer. It doesn't actually help anyone except themselves though. Politics isn't just showbiz for ugly people, its also status for stupid people too.

In my view politicians should be people who are willing to place public service before self, who want to leave the world a better place than they find it, who are capable of dealing with world as it is and not just as they wish it would be and who are capable of simultaneously raising the bar so that they and we aspire to high achievement while also dealing with the mundanity, compromise and tough decision making required in running things day to day. Her party, in my opinion, fails this test.

Your final sentence can be condensed to 'shes not going to achieve anything', which a)you cant possibly predict and b) could be thrown at any politician.

Yes I can and do possibly predict it. She will be completely irrelevant to the running of the country, the passing of legislation and the development of policy. She is one MP in a parliament of 650 odd.

It could be thrown at any individual politician and often is. That is why political parties, political platforms and movements and electoral systems matter. If you are a single Lib Dem MP in parliament you are largely pointless. If however you are part of a group of sixty or so you are much more relevant, not least in the context of the need for a coalition - providing that is you are able to either remember or discover some principles during the pre-coalition discussions. But even being a party doesn't help if you are essentially composed of unworkable and narrow policies.



Erm - I've just checked my BIG Concordance - which lists all the significant words used in the Bible and gives chapter-and-verse references for them, and guess what?

"Pious" isn't listed. NOT. ONCE. :devil:

Checked the various versions on the BibleGateway site as well.

Not there either. :devil:


Pious isn't a Biblical word. It comes from Latin "pius" which means "dutiful" or "devoted".

Virgil uses it in the "Aeneid" to describe his hero Aeneas whose character is marked by his devotion to the gods of Troy and his concern and loving respect for his father Anchises.

In other words, a good, dutiful, caring and responsible son and citizen.

The main charges levelled against the Pharisees in the New Testament is that they were covetous of their money, and hypocritical and judgemental in their religious behaviour.

Just to keep things right. :devil:


EDIT: "plank" is in the Bible, though; for example, Matthew 7:4,5: "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Or sister's, as the case might be. :wink:

[hibsbollah]

Erm - I've just checked my BIG Concordance - which lists all the significant words used in the Bible and gives chapter-and-verse references for them, and guess what?

"Pious" isn't listed. NOT. ONCE. :devil:

Checked the various versions on the BibleGateway site as well.

Not there either. :devil:


Pious isn't a Biblical word. It comes from Latin "pius" which means "dutiful" or "devoted".

Virgil uses it in the "Aeneid" to describe his hero Aeneas whose character is marked by his devotion to the gods of Troy and his concern and loving respect for his father Anchises.

In other words, a good, dutiful, caring and responsible son and citizen.

The main charges levelled against the Pharisees in the New Testament is that they were covetous of their money, and hypocritical and judgemental in their religious behaviour.

Just to keep things right. :devil:


EDIT: "plank" is in the Bible, though; for example, Matthew 7:4,5: "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Or sister's, as the case might be. :wink:

Interesting, Doddie. The Lord was familiar with planks but not with piety:wink:

I think its infinitely depressing that any remnant of idealism in politics or any other public sphere is seen as something to be dismissive of. This kind of extreme cynicism defeats logic and closes debate.

[One Day Soon]

So by your logic, any politician not representing the status quo is an irrelevance?:faf:

Have you been drinking? I am saying exactly the opposite.

So much incoherent babble in one post.

Do you always just completely ignore arguments you don't like or cannot address? I imagine that is probably a lot simpler in many ways. Perhaps you should join the Greens?

I had forgotten how limited some people can be.

---------- Post added at 11:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------


Erm - I've just checked my BIG Concordance - which lists all the significant words used in the Bible and gives chapter-and-verse references for them, and guess what?

"Pious" isn't listed. NOT. ONCE. :devil:

Checked the various versions on the BibleGateway site as well.

Not there either. :devil:


Pious isn't a Biblical word. It comes from Latin "pius" which means "dutiful" or "devoted".

Virgil uses it in the "Aeneid" to describe his hero Aeneas whose character is marked by his devotion to the gods of Troy and his concern and loving respect for his father Anchises.

In other words, a good, dutiful, caring and responsible son and citizen.

The main charges levelled against the Pharisees in the New Testament is that they were covetous of their money, and hypocritical and judgemental in their religious behaviour.

Just to keep things right. :devil:


EDIT: "plank" is in the Bible, though; for example, Matthew 7:4,5: "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Or sister's, as the case might be. :wink:

Well I suppose you are right if we are to say that piety the word is not to be found in the Bible. My contention is that false piety and falsely pious men are clearly criticised in biblical teaching. Matthew directly addresses personal piety in giving and praying:

"Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So, when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men.......And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men."

Pharisees being hypocritical and judgmental in their religious behaviour is exactly what I was getting at. And I think the plank reference is perfect.

[One Day Soon]

Interesting, Doddie. The Lord was familiar with planks but not with piety:wink:

I think its infinitely depressing that any remnant of idealism in politics or any other public sphere is seen as something to be dismissive of. This kind of extreme cynicism defeats logic and closes debate.

I think that is what is known as complete bollock5 is it not? What I have been criticising is not idealism but the use of shameless grandstanding to absolutely no good effect. No questioning the received orthodoxies though eh? Lets keep those witless Bulgarians in line.

You probably think The Catcher in the Rye is dangerously subversive.

[New Corrie]

My lasting memory will be the halarity that was brought about by the SNP, absolutely hilarious...did anyone else see it? There was this fat smug Yam insisting that they were going to get 20 Westminster seats, then ending up only polling 50k more votes than the Tories. Deluded is a word that appears often on football boards, but this Salmond guy just takes it to another level...it brought great hilarity to an otherwise dull night!

[hibsbollah]

I think that is what is known as complete bollock5 is it not? What I have been criticising is not idealism but the use of shameless grandstanding to absolutely no good effect. No questioning the received orthodoxies though eh? Lets keep those witless Bulgarians in line.

You probably think The Catcher in the Rye is dangerously subversive.

The only argument you seem able to employ is crass generalisations and witless abuse. You are the pointless cynic.

[--------]

Well I suppose you are right if we are to say that piety the word is not to be found in the Bible. My contention is that false piety and falsely pious men are clearly criticised in biblical teaching. Matthew directly addresses personal piety in giving and praying:

"Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So, when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men.......And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men."

Pharisees being hypocritical and judgmental in their religious behaviour is exactly what I was getting at. And I think the plank reference is perfect.




So did I - but I think you've missed my point.... :devil:

[One Day Soon]

The only argument you seem able to employ is crass generalisations and witless abuse. You are the pointless cynic.

Facts are so painful aren't they? I didn't really expect you to move from a staple diet of assertions to something as inconvenient as the truth. If I was employing witless abuse I would have described your contribution as Galloway meets Sheridan but without any of the style. But I'm not.

---------- Post added at 10:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------


So did I - but I think you've missed my point.... :devil:

I didn't miss it Doddie, I deliberately ignored it. I'm not a complete plank you know.....

[Hibbie0762]

My lasting memory will be the halarity that was brought about by the SNP, absolutely hilarious...did anyone else see it? There was this fat smug Yam insisting that they were going to get 20 Westminster seats, then ending up only polling 50k more votes than the Tories. Deluded is a word that appears often on football boards, but this Salmond guy just takes it to another level...it brought great hilarity to an otherwise dull night!Aye, King Smug lacks above all any personal sense of irony. He seem oblivious to the obvious contradictions between his claim that the Tories with one seat up here have no mandate to govern Scotland - and his absurd assertion that the Nats, with six seats and an equally derisory share of the vote, somehow do have a right to a seat at the big table in order to tell Westminster what the Scots want.

It doesn't take a genius to look at Thursday's Scottish results and deduce which Party most Scots' voters prefer to be the voice of Scotland at Westminster.

I did enjoy watching the Krankies' increasingly desperate efforts to justify their eclipse as the results rolled in on Thursday morning. I also laughed very hard when the smug Mason was summarily evicted from Glasgow East. And as the game continues to unfold, the most amusing sideshow remains watching a blustering buffoon whose self-inflated bubble has been well and truly pricked make his increasingly desperate attempts to appear relevant to Scottish politics.