13 2 mins 8 yrs

Well then, been a very busy day so just catching up now.

Last week, I seemed to have caused a certain furore amongst my haters out there when I appeared on the BBC Nolan TV Show and suggested that a/ Those who do not work must not receive more in Benefits than those who do and b/ Many people with mental disabilities (such as my brother) manage to haul themselves out of bed and get to work. I noticed that a small group of these trolls were demanding the BBC instantly banish me to obscurity. Letters of complains were written albeit if in crayon.

Anyhoo, I appear on National BBC1 TV on Sunday morning on the “The Big Questions”! I will be debating the above question and you ALL know where I stand on these matters. I hope UK readers will tune in – it goes out LIVE at 10.00am on Sunday morning. I do hope my haters will hop on the outrage express and complain a little more πŸ™‚ as I enjoy the UK wide audience.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. I’d talk to anyone.

    I might not tell them what they want to hear, but I’d talk to the devil himself.

  2. Phantom – what?

    You criticised Ron Paul for being interviewed by Alex Jones. I explained that RP will be interviewed by anyone, his tactic being to get out the message of liberty by any means possible. You dismissed this of course.

    So you now admit you were wrong to criticise RP for appearing on the Alex Jones show?

  3. I’m speaking here of those in a position of power ( which was never the case with RP ) who seek to influence the behavior of friend and foe for the common good. Like it or not, a terrorist etc has power.

    Alex Jones is a maniac, a liar, and a conspiracy monger. Can we all agree on that. Whose behavior did Paul influence by going on his show?

    Ron Paul and Alex Jones are allies. I would not want Alex Jones as any sort of ally of mine.

    There’s a difference between talking to someone and being interviewed for a bats in the belfry audience on a Conspiracy Mania Radio Show.

  4. If Ron Paul were to speak privately to Alex Jones to try to persuade him to stop with the idiotic conspiracy mania, I would support it.

    But Ron Paul would never do that. Because he’s a conspiracy guy also.

  5. No, I’d talk to him.

    There’s a difference between talking to someone and being a guest and ally who appears on a loony tunes radio show.

    I would talk to him tomorrow morning. My first question would be ” what the hell is wrong with you”?

    I’d expect him to burst out laughing and to say that it was all an act.

    But yes, you set it up and I’ll speak to him at any time.

  6. Is it better to talk to terrorists? Well, the Greeks have been talking to the Germans and the can has been kicked down the road for four months, or maybe just two days:

    “Greece and Germany have stepped back from the brink. And for now Greece remains in the eurozone. But there will be months of fraught negotiations before it will be clear whether the economy and finances of this recession-battered nation have been put back on a stable footing. In fact, what was agreed on Friday night guarantees there will be no fresh crisis – no fears of Greece quitting the eurozone – for a full two days.

    Because by Monday night, the Syriza government has to submit a preliminary list of proposed economic reforms – which will form the basis of negotiations till the end of April on a new financial settlement for the country.”

  7. You can’t have a hard and fast answer to the question of talking to terrorists because the term itself is part of the propaganda war and has no agreed meaning. The real question should be, is there anything to talk about.

    Was it wrong for example for the British to talk to Michael Collins? The reality is that you win on the battlefield if you can and you negotiate if you can’t. Sensible leaders know when the time is right to make a deal. If you want to make a case against talking then you have to show how a better outcome can be achieved by military means.

  8. You should talk to them if the ultimate purpose is their surrender. Of course, you keep the surrender part to yourself until the end when you’ve got them so bound up there in no further negotiation and no escape. It is an ability Tony Blair lacked.

  9. The phrase talking to is perhaps an imperfect one. I think the policy in disfavor is not talking to but negotiating with. And frankly even then the issue is surely clouded by whatever the facts are in a given situation.

  10. I favour talking to them. To demand their unconditional surrender πŸ™‚

    Other topics for tomorrow
    “Should faith we taught in schools” NO
    “Does Satan exist” Yes.

Comments are closed.