Skip to main content

Labour's election strategy: bring on no-nonsense hard man Gordon Brown

I have already bought my "Step Outside Posh Boy" t-shirt. Go here for the new strategy. I seem to be one of the few people in the UK that are actually rather fond of Gordon Brown.


John Danaher said…
An April Fool's I presume. But funny nonetheless.
Tony said…
Me too, Stephen. Best PM in a long time.
Stephen Law said…
April fool yes but the t shirts are real.
G Felis said…
If GB keeps spouting brainless kack like this, you might want to re-think your fondness for him. Aside from the substance of what he says, which I'm willing to shrug off as political pablum, I must ask: How frickin' tone-deaf to the moment at hand must a politician be to applaud "the Catholic communion" - not just UK citizens who belong to the Church, but the institution itself - for acting as "the conscience of our country"? WTF?
Greg O said…
Very good - I'd be tempted to buy the T-shirt myself if I didn't think it'd be misinterpreted as an anti-Labour statement.

I've got purely selfish reasons to be fond of Gordon Brown - I started work and started a family under the Tories and remember waking up to the fact that we'd have been better off on the dole (because it cost money to work - e.g. in travel - but every penny you earned came straight off your benefits). Then Tax Credits came in and suddenly we could actually think about buying a house, taking holidays, and generally having some quality of life.

It infuriates me to hear people reeling out the 'all parties are the same line' now... the Tories' idea of educational opportunity in my home town was to cream off the top 50 kids every year and send them to the local public school, dumping the rest in an underfunded 'comprehensive' (= secondary modern). My kids now attend an actual comprehensive - one that (horrors!) everyone's allowed to go to - which was built from scratch two years ago and which makes the 'posh' school I attended look like a garden shed.

Just show how quickly people start taking things for granted I guess - or maybe people with younger kids now just don't realise what things used to be like, or higher earners don't realize (or don't care) how much the lives of us 'little people' have improved under Labour. Not looking forward to getting the Tories back though.
DM said…
Add comment moderation to your blasphemy blog...

you little liars do nothing but antagonize...

and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity...

but you LOST...


Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism...



atheists deny their own life element...


Greg O said…
Hee hee... this is worth a chuckle!

You know DM, the fruitcake who's been posting death threats/messages of Christian love (I get the two confused) on here lately? Well, I decided to follow some of his links to see what formidable anti-atheist arguments he has in his arsenal. In pride of place at the top of one of his favourite pages, here:

- is a video called 'Checkmate, Atheists'. Poor old DM seemingly hasn't noticed that it's a rather mirthsome *parody* of crappy Christian arguments, taking the piss out of people exactly like him.

Or maybe DM is a joke character himself?

Either way, thanks DM - cheered me up!
Kosh3 said…
"atheists deny their own life element... "

you bastards!

/not an atheist, don't deny my own life element
Paul said…
Mmm, DM seems to be one David Mabus, aka Dennis Markuze, from Montreal, Canada. Google 'David Mabus spam' and you'll see he has a certain notoriety. He doesn't seem to like atheists very much. He's on the Pharyngula bannned list:

(scroll down)

More worryingly though, see here:

Perhaps it's worth setting up some temporary moderation till he buggers off?
Kaz Dragon said…
Yeah, DM hit Atheist Missionary recently too, to the sound of much lulz.

Also, it appears you have been hit by a Labour spambot too. By the Boulder Pledge, I now may not vote Labour. Oh well.
Greg O said…
Not a Labour spambot - a debt lawyer spambot that's latched on to some of the money-worries language in one of my posts and started quoting me with a link attached. Sorry!
Kaz Dragon said…
Oh, I see. Sorry about that, Greg.
DM said…

One more time:




Stephen Law said…
How do I stop all these "best attorney" things (other than deleting em one by one) - anyone know?

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o