Is Skandar Keynes athiust?
441350
i don't think he is, he was on my anna popplewell fan site on myspace for quite sometime, that is until his myspace got deleted. so i kinda new him (because we would talk all the time)
450579
What evidence???  He believes that Tony Blair, the British royal family and various other world leaders are alien lizards.  Because they haven't bothered to deny this and they haven't sued him, he sees this as evidence that what he says is true.\n\nCan you imagine what the reaction of the media would be if Tony Blair sued David Icke for saying that he was a lizard?  How would Tony Blair prove that he wasn't a lizard?  \n\nDavid Icke is an entertaining lunatic.  99% of the time he is a harmless lunatic but the overtones of anti-semitism (the tired old cliches about a worldwide Jewish conspiracy) are disturbing.
313114
Well of course he is scum he is the mananger of SCUM. Arsenal and Chelsea are SCUM.\nAll bout LIVERPOOL\n3-0 AGAINST CHELSEA 2DAY\n\nChris :)
1070887
Don't know his religion but the knob hasn't smiled in four WC games now!\n\nBitter, twisted individual that he is.
486666
I think Tony Blair is a decent person. As a politician, however, his refusal to admit wrong doing in entering Iraq has scarred him very deeply in peoples opinion of him . His term in office has seen several deceptions of the British (and international) public, from Iraq to the trusworthiness of the cabinet whom he surrounds himself with.\nIf his argument is one of compassion, then why not depose Robert Mugabe, who is as deplorable as Hussein. \n\nCompassion cannot be selective, It would seem that Blair's has been shown to be.
864825
Sounds  to me  that  there is  a smug tom fool out there laughing at the  plight  of  some of the  people of London..\nNot all people  who live in London voted for  RED KEN. some of us  have more sense.. Not all people  who  live in London drive 4x4 vehicles.. And not all  people who live in London  have the spare cash to  pay exorbitant congestion charge rates.\n\nwhats  worse is  that  London is already  known  has the  most expensive  city in the  world to live in. These new charges will only  add to that reputation of high taxes  and poor  service..\n\nIts likely that  by raising  congestion charge  taxes  it will force  companies  to  rethink whether they  need to be  in London at all, and in fact will  drive  some out of the city  and out of  the country all together. If this  happens  then  what ever is gained by the  extra money  raised will be  More than  off set by the loss of   jobs  and  London's reputation ha being the  financial capital of the  world..\n\nPerhaps when the  city of London lays  like a Waste  land of  empty  office  and  empty streets  RED KEN will see the  error of  his ways.. Hahah  most likely though  he will be long  gone to play happy  families with his mate Hugo Chavez  in  Venezuela
746591
Well if the 'West' is stupid enough to buy it - why should they be blamed.\n\nand whilst we are on the subject....wasn't Miss Muffet a big supporter of Kurds?
332603
He was a promising chancellor - but now he's upsetting people. He doesn't listen. He doesn't read his email. He doesn't reply to email. He has chickened out of doing something about those bloody Chelsea tractors - going to our schools twice daily. He wastes millions on a daft tax credit system - so ill thought out. He forgets the people who voted Labour. The people will forget him when the General election comes. Wake up Gordon - before it's too late. Sack politicians - not doctors and nurses. For more click the link below.....
504856
The reshuffle was instigated way before Prescott's and Clarke's miseries. It wouldn't have helped just to sack Prescott (which Blair didn't anyway) - Blair NEED to do something on education and the NHS, and he MUST do something on foreign affairs and Europe - hence the major reshuffle!
673297
Not at all, he robs from the poor and gives the rich welfare, somewhere I think he has his prioritys mixed up or does he. He is a rich oil guy himself.
514797
It's funny.  Actually, when I was in undergrad it was exactly the opposite.  I learned pure Keynesian theory in undergrad, and the few mentioned of anything classical was laughed off as foolishness.  (I'm a little older than you!)\n\nThen came the shift...suddenly everything Keynesian was cast aside and everything neo-classical (whatever that means) was adopted.  So, we went from one extreme to the other.\n\nFrankly, I think Keynes has a lot of holes in it too, as does mainstream neo-classical.  Even Austrian theory is imperfect in some areas, and Marxian theory leaves out whole sections of analysis.\n\nI doubt we're ever going to reach the point where one set of theories can be tossed aside completely, but I do believe we are approaching another major shift.  Still, I don't think it is quite going in the direction you imagine.\n\nKeynesianism as a whole lost a lot of steam in the days of Nixon-Ford.  However, I annoy my Keynesian friends by pointing out how George W. Bush is actually reverting to at least part of the Keynesian approach - with future dire consequences, I predict.  \n\nKeynesian and neo-Classical both utterly ignore (or at least thoroughly misunderstand) the role of the entrepreneur in markets.  Also, Keynesian monetary policy (or at least what was sold as Keynesian policy) was largely a disaster when applied. It boosted the economy for a while, but led to epidemic currency devaluations worldwide, including in the U.S.  I suspect most of us over 35 will object if too much of Keynes is revived.\n\nBut yes, the specific points you make are well taken.  The Laffer Curve is a joke if one doesn't consider where we are on the curve. And, the institutional barriers to free markets are the key to understanding how to improve the lot of the poor.\n\nYou will always find the top graduate schools questioning things around the edges.  However, once you get beyond the top 6 or 7 schools, the rest of the top 50 are still promoting the LAST great theory, because they don't want to rock the boat.  They're on a race to climb up the rankings, and they think they can only do that by being 'mainstream'.  The desire to hug the mainstream is so pronounced where I am, that it's a little scary. Neo-classical still rules at most of the top 50 Ph.D. programs, sad to say.
768056
No but that is a fantastic quote.\n\nFound it!  Thomas Dewar
65079
Only if the race were between Perry and Friedman.  Otherwise, no. In my opinion Friedman has no platform or experience.  Strayhorn and Gammage both have him beat hands down.
220551
It very debatable, but the most likely person was John Dickenson.\nhttp://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/editorial/98/07/05/7-5-safire.0-0.html
1081077
I have to disagree in that Robin of Loxley was a returning Crusade Knight who as you know probably slaughtered many Muslims in his travels. His robbing from the rich and giving to the poor is Myth. He was mostly interested in getting his own expropriated property back from the usurper to the Crown while King Richard the Lion Hearted was being held hostage. Mohammed ( Peace be Upon him ) was a prophet, which is vastly different from the what so-called Robinhood was about.
118607
No.  There is no party that is truly conservative anymore.  We can't even protect our borders. We can't even win in Iraq.  Why?  Politics.  I am from the political standpoint of Winston Churchill.  He crushed his enemies with brute force.  He was considered on the fringe of the right in his time but if he was Prime Minister from the start rather than Neville Chamberlain, Hitler would have been stopped rather than appeased.  I urge anyone who considers themselves to be a republican to read Churchill's biography.  Find out how a true conservative thought.  He did nothing short of save this world.
1053169
Who else? We have got  an economist as a prime minister.