<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/565008</link>
		<description>Comments by dizzythinks</description>
<item>
<title>Columnists : Nadine Dorries MP: In the jungle, people finally saw a Tory MP who could relate to them. I would do </title>
<link>http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2012/11/from-nadinedorriesmp-.html#IDComment500559918</link>
<description>I love the use of the phrase &amp;quot;most thinking people&amp;quot; here. Priceless example of the snobbery I mentioned both here and on my blog. </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:14:22 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2012/11/from-nadinedorriesmp-.html#IDComment500559918</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Columnists : Nadine Dorries MP: In the jungle, people finally saw a Tory MP who could relate to them. I would do </title>
<link>http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2012/11/from-nadinedorriesmp-.html#IDComment500521719</link>
<description>What&amp;#039;s most astounding to me is the way some commentators seem to think that you were wrong to go on the show because MPs are too important to do such things. The snobbery of that opinion is and was incredible </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thecolumnists/2012/11/from-nadinedorriesmp-.html#IDComment500521719</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : @NadineDorriesMP is out of there... some after-thoughts </title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2012/11/nadine-dorries-is-out-of-there-some.html#IDComment497817140</link>
<description>Am not really defending her per se, rather pointing out how some of the arguments made are crap.  If people just said,  &amp;quot;I fucking hate the bitch and I don&amp;#039;t like her doing this tv show&amp;quot; I would say &amp;quot;fair enough&amp;quot;, but some of the things being said seem to be implying that MPs are more important than they actually are.    &amp;quot;She will, however, soon become a &amp;quot;slebrity&amp;quot; ex-MP and make a cushy living on TV sofas, like Portillo, Abbott etc al&amp;quot;  &amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt; don&amp;#039;t disagree </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2012/11/nadine-dorries-is-out-of-there-some.html#IDComment497817140</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : A shocking state of affairs!</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2012/05/shocking-state-of-affairs.html#IDComment497803829</link>
<description>I can, its called a typo you fuckqit[sic] </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:30:05 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2012/05/shocking-state-of-affairs.html#IDComment497803829</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Chris Heaton-Harris - centrist credentials laid bare</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2012/05/chris-heaton-harris-centrist.html#IDComment361340585</link>
<description>I never stopped blogging, was just busy :-) </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 06:59:51 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2012/05/chris-heaton-harris-centrist.html#IDComment361340585</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Stop saying \&quot;flaming\&quot; is \&quot;trolling\&quot;?</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/11/stop-saying-flaming-is-trolling.html#IDComment219202620</link>
<description>err I&amp;#039;m not. I said I was posting neo-Marxist arguments to wind someone up. Learn to read. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:33:03 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/11/stop-saying-flaming-is-trolling.html#IDComment219202620</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Stop saying \&quot;flaming\&quot; is \&quot;trolling\&quot;?</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/11/stop-saying-flaming-is-trolling.html#IDComment218071708</link>
<description>except that would be something different   &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_%28fishing%29&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_%28fishing%...&lt;/a&gt; </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Nov 2011 09:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/11/stop-saying-flaming-is-trolling.html#IDComment218071708</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Right wing former minister in links to other right wingers SHOCKER!</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/10/right-wing-former-minister-in-links-to.html#IDComment211195631</link>
<description>I am not sure if another of my comments have been caught in the ether --- nah I&amp;#039;m just lazy :) </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 06:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/10/right-wing-former-minister-in-links-to.html#IDComment211195631</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Right wing former minister in links to other right wingers SHOCKER!</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/10/right-wing-former-minister-in-links-to.html#IDComment208574045</link>
<description>Afraid you suspect wrong. I couldnt give a flying fuck about the irritating shortarse little cunt. I am surprised at you using the logic of casual racism though Bob, after all what political wing the shortarse represents is irrelevant to his fiddling. You wouldnt, if he was black, dream of refering to him as a &amp;#039;fiddling little black shit&amp;#039; so why use the same style of argument when you know full well that being dodgy is not exclusive to any particular political wing - see expenses jail terms for details.  What i am miffed at is the stretching irrelevancy of much of the Observer investigation. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 05:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/10/right-wing-former-minister-in-links-to.html#IDComment208574045</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Perspective</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/07/perspective.html#IDComment175099008</link>
<description>&amp;quot;whataboutism, isn&amp;#039;t it?&amp;quot;    Far from it, the point is a bit of perspective for those who call for Cameron to quit or think he might. Blair survived far worse allegations and scandal  pressure I&amp;#039;d say. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:19:01 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/07/perspective.html#IDComment175099008</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Perspective</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/07/perspective.html#IDComment175086800</link>
<description>Good one... Have added </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/07/perspective.html#IDComment175086800</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : This is a gay club for gay people...we\&#039;ll have no straight ones here</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/06/this-is-gay-club-for-gay-peoplewell.html#IDComment167091277</link>
<description>Errr &amp;quot;identity politics&amp;quot; refers to the idea of grouping people based on social groups, e.g. gays/straights etc and the fact that when you go down the route of championing social groups on the matter of discrimination against them you will inevitably end up with those groups having to discriminate in their own favour which is at best a double standard and at worst total hypocrisy.  I was also being sarcastic about heterophobia in the sense that it is OK for a gay person to call a straight person a &amp;quot;breeder&amp;quot; in a pejorative way but it is not OK for a straight person to call a gay person &amp;quot;gay&amp;quot; in a pejorative way. It is an utterly absurd situation, much like the other point I made about racism which tends to be based on &amp;quot;whitey is evil&amp;quot; rather than &amp;quot;attacks on someone because of their skin colour is wrong irrespective of whether they;re white/black/purple or spotted&amp;quot;.  This is about consistency of argument and the lack of it when dealing with social groups and the subject of discrimination. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/06/this-is-gay-club-for-gay-peoplewell.html#IDComment167091277</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Through the human rights looking glass</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/through-human-rights-looking-glass.html#IDComment156940166</link>
<description>Evidently :-) </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2011 08:17:59 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/through-human-rights-looking-glass.html#IDComment156940166</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Through the human rights looking glass</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/through-human-rights-looking-glass.html#IDComment156939543</link>
<description>oops </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2011 08:13:47 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/through-human-rights-looking-glass.html#IDComment156939543</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : EXCLUSIVE: Government and Opposition agree on less than two years for rape</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/exclusive-government-and-opposition.html#IDComment153807312</link>
<description>Indeed, and in that sense Ken Clarke was right although rather cack-handed in his first attempt to explain it. Of course, the statutory sentence ought to more in my view.   This post is not really about the cack-handedness of his interview, but rather the sheer hypocrisy of the arguments about the theoretical length of sentences which in both case are too short. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 07:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/exclusive-government-and-opposition.html#IDComment153807312</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : NHS IT could have worked... maybe</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/nhs-it-could-have-worked-maybe.html#IDComment153476701</link>
<description>Actually the way I was thinking about it was not for &amp;quot;import&amp;quot; but rather just for reading. So if you took stuff from one place you would just be able to read it you wouldn;t then import it into the other local system that requested it. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 14:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/nhs-it-could-have-worked-maybe.html#IDComment153476701</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Tory MP supports paedophile... no wait... what?</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/tory-mp-supports-paedophile-no-wait.html#IDComment153371447</link>
<description>You seem to be confused with the different between   &amp;quot;might have an impact&amp;quot; = indefinite future  &amp;quot;would have impact&amp;quot; = definite future  and   &amp;quot;could have stopped&amp;quot; = definitie past  She said the first, not the second  and certainly not the third. Go and read the quote again.   This is simply a case of straw man logic about what people want to think she said rather than what he said. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 09:44:57 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/tory-mp-supports-paedophile-no-wait.html#IDComment153371447</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : The Code</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/code.html#IDComment152602630</link>
<description>Am wholly impressed at how quickly that was spotted. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 12:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/05/code.html#IDComment152602630</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Oil, interests, Iraq and reality</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/04/oil-interests-iraq-and-reality.html#IDComment144155769</link>
<description>The problem with your argument about my argument is that it is a straw man. What I actually said was that in the affairs and matters of states, morals tend to be secondary to interests. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/04/oil-interests-iraq-and-reality.html#IDComment144155769</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Dizzy Thinks : Oil, interests, Iraq and reality</title>
<link>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/04/oil-interests-iraq-and-reality.html#IDComment144139023</link>
<description>The best defence against invasion is to either have WMDs (and not give them up) &amp;gt;&amp;gt; I did mean to make that point about North Korea but forgot. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://dizzythinks.net/2011/04/oil-interests-iraq-and-reality.html#IDComment144139023</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>