How sad is it when people can boast to celebrate at the death of another, whose only "crime" was to carry out their firmly held beliefs after being elected to do so. Whilst massively disagreeing with many people in many walks of life, I would never lower myself to celebrate their deaths - I would include Blair, Goodwin, Scargill, Brown, those who sold off the friendly societies, Martin Samuels and David Pleat in that list...
i cannot think of any other persons death that will be celebrated by instant parties all over the country-- ever wonder why?? its as much about what she represents as anything else-- an icon for the free marketeers-- leonardo--you say every thing you have is hard earned-- i suppose all that mortgage relief you must have enjoyed was provided by elves in the garden-- and lets not forget how an over cooked housing bubble has created a lot of the disparity in wealth-- greatfor those on the gravy boat, less so for those who are not--as cologne correctly points out,for every 'winner' under capitalism there are many -fold 'losers' --me and my family, my forefathers , their forefathers have all grafted, given their lives, but are we to be denigrated for not having wealth ??
Something you will never hear from any politician - 'Yes you are right`, I thought that when the White House were celebrating Bin Ladin's death - sick, in the extreme. Much as I hate Thatcher's legacy and beliefs I cannot bring myself to hate her as a person (More the idiots who voted for her). Furthermore the way we form our political beliefs is largely coincidence, not really being our own ideas at all but simply a logical result of influences received at impressionable periods of our lives - and so yes I abominate ideas but not people.
So people who have worked hard, saved and sacrificed much to improve their lives and the lives of their children have been living on the "Gravy boat" and doing so on the backs of others? - well I for one totally resent that accusation. My parents moved from living in the attic of a house in North London that had no bathroom and a toilet shared with 3 other families to a 3 bedroom council house in Hemel - they both worked hard to bring up their children in a good way and always lived within their means. My old mum used to work on the night shift at Kodak so that we could afford to eat properly and had our 2 weeks in Devon. All of their children worked hard at school, worked hard in their careers and have used the sacrifices of their parents to improve their lives and give their children an even better start in life - we have all paid high taxes without any complaint, we have helped people less fortunate than ourselves and have generally contributed where we can. Just because we may own our houses, may have saved for our own pensions - it is not off the back of anyone else. My parents both died very young, and probably because of the poverty they experienced in their early lives, but they never ever complained or asked for hand-outs, they just got on with their lives. I wonder if it just too easy to blame others than get on in life?
I would not wish to ridicule the efforts of anyone who has worked their way out of poverty - my own family came originally from a Scunthorpe steel working background and my father grew up in an orphanage. However this 'Self Help' philosophy commonly found amongst the middle classes does not apply to all times and ages in the same degree - it cannot be expanded to a general philosophy covouring more than individual cases. In order to be universally valid it has to be against a background of measureable social mobility ie. the numbers of people born in a specific social class who leave it during their lifetime - a tendency found more in the past e.g. the 50's and 60's than now - I would hazard a guess and say that this has slowed down dramatically since and that the majority of those born in poverty now will remain there or thereabouts for their whole lives. What most 'socialists' would say is that they want a society in which the 'struggles of the past to escape poverty' are no longer necessary.
What does my computer have against S****horpe ? I mean the town near Doncaster - God these machines are stupid !
It's not your computer - more likely to be the setting on the very bottom left hand corner of the page - do you have the swearing filter on or off?
Like w-y I could never rejoice at another person's death and find it sick that anyone can - I hated the "Gotcha" headline in the Sun over the Belgrano, the US reactions to the deaths of Bin Laden, Gaddaffi and Saddam Hussein. Firstly I strongly doubt your statistic. Secondly I cannot argue with someone who starts to use the Bible as an argument unless they also stay with it on stoning adulterers etc - to use a 3,000 year old Old testament book as a justification of modern economics is bizarre in the extreme. As an economist I can tell you that money has to be put to work to benefit society - if the bankers would only resume lending to small businesses now we would see an improvement - and if you seriously believe someone would lend money to another and get nothing in return you really are in Wonderland - to how many strangers do you lend your car for free?. Interest is the payment for the use of someone's possession - capital - and is perfectly fair so long as controlled against "usurous" rates. ( Oh and I hope you are aware of how Muslims "get around" not paying interest) I want to live in a society which encourages and supports everybody to be the best they can be. I want a tax system that takes more from the better off who can afford to pay more so that we can have education and welfare for all. I want people to have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. I do not want to live in a society that is jealous of those who are "rich" and pretends that taxing them can pay for everything the "poor" want. Tax is taking another persons money to use for public good - and that is what it needs to be. However we should all be responsible and not look for somebody else "the government" to pay for things we just want but do not need.
I hope whatever our backgrounds we'd like to see as much poverty eliminated as possible. I think the word 'fascist' perhaps carries a stronger resonance amongst older generations, especially those who lost family members fighting it. I personally would prefer not to have someone who favoured such views managing my club, but of course it's not down to me. I might wish everyone associated with WFC to be morally upstanding but it would be to fly in the face of the real world. That said, there are some views and actions that a community-minded club would probably do well to disassociate itself from.
Issue I have with the Socialist argument is that it assumes that everyone is equal and their opportunities are only based on their environment. So if anyone excels, then they must have done so to the detriment of others. It does not take into account the drive, dedication and skills that one individual may have more of than another. Linking back to the original topic of this thread was regarding Di Canio and fascists - I wonder what that Socialist icon Joe Stalin would be considered? It's a ridiculous question as I know the answer - Socialists would consider Uncle Joe as a totalitarian communist and as far away from true socialism as the Tory party. But the fact remains that he practiced the core principles of Socialism of the state control of producing wealth and spreading that wealth evenly across the population. I travelled extensively fir many years and took in most of the old Eastern Block countries whilst the iron-curtain was in place and without a doubt they were the most corrupt countries I have ever visited - and that includes Nigeria, which takes a lot of beating. Even Cuba is not all that it seems - yes it has one of the worlds finest health and education systems, but beneath the surface it is built of foreign tourist coin.
You assume - correctly in fact that I had a mortgage - I paid rate of interest up to 20% on that as in those days inflation was rampant - but any mortgage relief you talk about was not money paid to me it was a lessening of the tax being taken from me - so I earned the money to pay my mortgage and thankfully the government did not tax it all away but boy did I struggle in those days to pay it. People living in public rented accommodation also received subsidies on their rent and sometimes the rent or part of it paid for them so don't get on too high a horse there. There are winners and losers in every political system - as in life itself. Lastly nobody here is denigrating you or your family for lack of wealth - we have all admitted we come from poverty struck families of old - after the war my parents lived in a rented room from which tehy were evicted when my mum became pregnant. I was born in a Nissen hut - for those of you who do not know what that is it was a converted shelter built in the war. Rudebwoy - you need to get away from the belief that the rest of the world are all rich and on a gravy train and that you and your family are the poor exception
I can actually produce statistics if required. As for the Biblical source - the Western World and particularly it's power source the U.S.A. does still define itself as Christian - all I am doing here is showing how shaky its ideological fundament is. At the same time demonstrating that Communist ideology is far older than Marxism (The Bible is in parts a very left wing document) - occuring periodically throughout history in one form or another - all Communist ideologies before Marx had a religious background. Also the parts of the Bible referred to here are from the New Testament and do not include stoning of anyone !
Just on a purely practical note, we had a right wing President who sought to achieve a balance for people, offering reasonable tax rates, one of the best health systems in the world, and a reasonable standard of living for most. To achieve this it needed people to contribute to the society, both in time and money if you had any. Of course those in his government managed to live at a higher standard than the masses and sometimes were caught out feathering their nests rather more than was acceptable. When the elections came round again to elect a new president, the incumbent was offering more of the steady as it goes lifestyle, while his left wing opponent was suggesting that life wasn't fair and he would change it all. Appealing in almost every speech he made to the instincts of those who don't change their car every year he somehow found himself in office. Of course the reality kicked in when he took over and found that a lot of the ideals he promised to the lower paid were not possible. Taxes are rising to help pay for schemes to create jobs, but the increased taxes on business are forcing them to close, and the unemployed are growing faster than any back to work scheme can find work for them. Cuts are starting in the health service which you cannot do here without setting everyone against you. The more wealthy who paid out â¬Ms in tax are leaving the country because while they were willing to pay 45% to the country, they were not going to pay 76% The man is fast becoming a joke, both here and around Europe. When asked questions his usual answer is that he doesn't know. He has earned the title of the Know Nothing President and weekly his poll ratings sink even further. Even the extreme left are questioning if the country wasn't better before. As a footnote, I don't have the right to vote in that election.
Sorry to change the topic slightly, but I think this whole story shows just what the lress think of the lower leagues. There was nowhere near the level of puhlic outcry when Di Canio took over at Swindon. Yet now there are people who are outraged, disgusted and think its atrocious. Whats the difference? Surely if he is such a bad man, then he should not have managed Swindon? It would seem that people only care now because its a premier league team. Do some really think that little of football outside of the Premier League?
I request those stats - from a reputable source not the Daily Worker. The richest 10% I suspect have most of their money in property and shares and not in interest bearing bank deposits. Obtaining the income - including benefoits of course of the lowest 20% could be easier - let's see. Just because a country is Christian does not mean that its entire ideology is coherent with the Bible - all it means is that people define themselves as Christian - not that they have read - or understood the bible - I challenge you to find 1% of the population who could point to where in the New Testament it warns against interest - for the sake of interest (no pun) perhaps you could tell me which bit. Shame those Christians did not read the more fundamental bit where Jesus himself told people thou shalt not kill - he clearly forgot to say unless it is in a war against a bad man - or just maybe he had enough confidence in his father to leave justice to him. Oh and stoning IS part of the New Testament - although JC suggested that the one without sin cast the first stone - but enough of religion on top of politics Back to the real world. If you have capital you do not put it under the bed. You need it to work for you - that means interest or the Muslim equivalent which involves complicated sale and buyback arrangements I understand. If you own something then it is yours so why should someone who has less than you tell you to give it up and give it to them - ridiculous. It is fair and just to have an enlightened and progressive tax and benefits system and some Scandinavian models are good ones but let's not pretend that the ills of the poor lie entirely at the feet of the rich - it is too simplistic and simply wrong. When you define poverty as we do as a percentage of the median then you will always have poverty - by definition. Real poverty exists outside the shores of most European countries and ask in Africa what real poverty is - it is not having to have children share a bedroom or not have a colour TV and the like. The sooner people stop pretending that this is a country with real poverty and concentrate instead on simply making it a fair and kind society the sooner we may make progress
Sorry Dan - we do seem to have hijacked this thread. maybe we should transfer this topic to another although I am not sure there is much more to say about PDC which has not yet been said - you are right - it is a Press issue.
So sorry about the Biblical sources - and very difficult to argue with. I could go on with this theme of Christianity and Communism but I think it would bore many on here. You say that what you own belongs to you - No! Your possessions exist because of the State - because there is a legal and policing system and an infrastructure which guarantees your possession - in pure nature possession has no validity. Do you think that a man can become super rich in Benin ? Again not, a man needs to be born within a certain infrastructure to become rich and so has obligations along with his wealth. Also, I do not feel it is constructive to compare real poverty and comparative poverty in this way - we should be comparing ourselves to other European countries not to African ones. In a sense Capitalism and poverty are always interrelated in as much as the whole system of marketing etc. is based around trying to convince us that what we have is not enough - in other words convincing us to buy what we don't actually need - creating needs ! So we produce comparative poverty ie. If I have only one pair of shoes with holes in them and my neighbour has only the same then I do not feel poor - only when a comparison is possible - then I feel poor. Quite simply because I do not have access to those things which are considered as essential in the society where I live. The fact that someone living in Bangla Desh is worse off is then no consolation.
Cologne - I enjoy reading your arguments - in common with so many on the Watford board there can be strong differences of opinion and they rarely if ever resort in to name calling and the like. I would like to continue with this discussion - and who knows despite it ranging across politics and religion others may be interested enough to contribute. However maybe we should start it on another thread so that it is clear what we are discussing. Do you want to start one maybe simply called "Politics and religion" - I know some boards - eg Hull's deliberately exclude them from topics that can be discussed. I suspect if we continue we will find that there is less difference between us than this thread so far might suggest. If you do want to continue I suggest you post the gist of your last post as a starter for ten. If you are bored with this though I will understand. COYH tonight
No worries Leo, I will leave all this discussion in here. Politics isnt everyones cup of tea, so its easier to keep it in one place
I wonder if North Korea is then considered a capitalist state - with 30% of the population suffering from malnutrition it must be considered as suffering extreme poverty. Then according to the logic above, it must be a capitalist state?
