And now here we are, two decades later and both the U.S. and British governments/media are not only sympathetic to these same terrorists, but are actively making policy to allow terrorism to thrive in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iran.
I can't imagine an interview like this today. Deep questions and answers without all of the theatrics, drama and interrupting. It's enough to have a great writer and an erudite and prepared interviewer. What else is necessary? Thank you for the reminder.
God isn't "capricious", no matter how much CH wanted to say He is. God doesn't "torment" Job, but He proves something to the universe of created beings (including we who read it now). He puts His servant Job in a bad place, leading him to stand in his battle station, which he does, in much suffering, coming through to trusting faith again. We who spiritually know Jesus, know that He can be trusted not to lead us into unnecessary suffering. We know that God hates moral evil, and does not create it and sure does not delight in evil, like a wicked man. If we're not satisfied until the suffering rise up and curse God, then that's today's world, for you, and today's wisdom.
The Lord and the MP were beyond useless. Debate should have been between Friedman and (oddly enough) the Marxist economist. His replies were much sharper. Though governments deserve credit for 'fostering' modern industry? I would like to hear what the Japanese government knows that the Indian government does not. It nonetheless remains the case that the counterarguments to Friedman seem either unexamined or more like articles of faith than Friedman's own credo. I would really like to hear a good one...
Also curious why they think tariffs work in some cases, but not others. They seem to be wise to the perception that across-the-board protectionism is an 'extreme view', so they retreat to piecemeal tariffs, without answering why universal protectionism is an objectionable view in the first place. Are tariffs bad? Or are they good? If they're good, why not have them across the board? What's the shame in that? Lord Kearton would reply that they're only necessary to shield nascent (and promising), or old (and failing), industries. So, as Friedman would point out, every industry but the ones that are already successful. But couldn't those be made more successful still, with tariffs? If a bad industry can be made good with tariffs, why can't a good one be made better? They seem to be the tonic.
I would have loved for them to talk about what has held India back. Is the argument that its economy failed to develop like Japan's because the tariffs were too low, and government intervention was insufficiently strong? Would more of either cause the economy to boom? This is a question for India's economy as a whole, but especially for the textile industry, since it has received so much government attention and shielding, to such poor result. Their contention would have to be that the Japanese textile industry only succeeded because of government action, but the good kind of action, while the Indian intervention was the wrong kind. But how do you do tariffs wrong, or subsidies wrong? There's only one way to do either. You add a tax to foreign goods; and you give money to your domestic producers. So... I'm not sure how that worked out in Japan's favor, but failed in India. That, or government was not the reason for Japan's success, but it was the reason for India's failure. It's too hard to discuss successes (at least when one side views things kinda crooked). But failure, that sure seems easier to explain. I didn't hear anyone contesting him on the causes of India's unrelieved poverty.
Britain is allowed to limit the mumber of Muslims they permit to become citizens in their country. The number could be zero, if they want. Why are western countries required to accept the entry of these very difficult, problem-causing people. They only use our democracy against us.
I'm just looking at Douglas at the beginning of this video, I can see how angry he is. The continual misrepresentation of Israel brings the fire out in Douglas.
Calling to assassinate Trump? We like Trump in USA and this man is now enemy and terrorist. Even our free speech doesn't allow us to say this stuff. Now we gotta get ya.
Douglas has been speaking truth and sense for more than a decade, it's taken that long before people are realising how much prophetic warnings are coming from him.
One thing that's certain about every Christian is that they are going to be fairly certain that they know exactly what is going on in any given situation and exactly what the problems are and who needs to change their behavior and what needs to happen in every instance. You never hear one of them say you know what. I'm not very well informed on that issue and perhaps I shouldn't issue a proclamation. Instead, they will tell you exactly what you need to do
Why didn't Jesus bother to say anything about gay people? Why didn't he give an f about that? If it's such a big deal to Christians, how come Jesus didn't say shid about it?
What a fascinating watch. Im struck by many things but chiefly how the hawks are so keen to embark on war despite seeming so insipid themselves. I also struggle to remember that everything they discuss was under a Labour government who make Sunak's Cons look liberal. Strange times but i'd be back in them in an instant.
As an anarchist in favor of the good Dr. Milton Friedman, I would like to say: That where I think he goes wrong, is that when they are out here talking about “the rat race” he should have noted that the government market is just as much a part of the rat race as the Henry Fords, are you gonna tell me it isn’t? That those in government want for nothing? They are self sacrificing and our taxes are entirely optional? But no one would argue that. Of course government are purely self interested little rats like the rest of us, the only difference is that they don’t value consent, they think that their envy being tied up in such red tape is reprehensible
What is a Conservative party for if it can't even abolish Blair's american Supreme Court and put some hereditary peerage back into the House of Lords ? Cameron embraced the Blair project, not really realizing that he was taking on a Blairite version of west-european (non-soviet) communism. It's time to reverse the Blair/Brown reforms of 1997-2010, because you can't do right of centre politics in the UK since those reforms.
The debate about electoral reform could just as easily have been from today (2024). The Lib Dems still make the case for PR, and votes for non-Establishment parties have risen exponentially since then. It's also interesting how the panel were overwhelmingly supportive of Camilla so soon after Diana's death. Her dying was partly what set back Camilla's introduction to the Royal Family even further, and she didn't marry Charles for another seven years.
Israel's civilian-to-combat ratio is 1.3 civilians for every combat killed. The average civilian and combatant ratio is between eight and nine civilians for every combat killed. This is disproportionate but not in the direction that you are arguing! Israel has been disproportionately careful not to kill civilians.
