Politics

Can't really fault any of your argument there, Leo - but think that you've missed out one important point.

No one has the right to amass obscene wealth on the back of, and to the detriment of, other members of society - the very society upon which they rely not only to manufacture whatever product they sell, but to consume said product. This is why we view occurrences such as the recent Bangladesh disaster as abhorrences - we recognise that such happenings are simply out of order, and fuelled mainly by greed. The main reason we as humans live in a society is that doing so can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not otherwise be possible on an individual basis. The key word there is members, not an individual member or particularly small group of members. Unfortunately, we simply cannot currently say that that is what happens in Britain today, or anywhere else for that matter. Like you, I don't particularly begrudge the wealthy their wealth, it's just the size of their wealth that to me is unnecessary and does little more than lead to problems within society.

For me, society is very much like politics. In politics we tend to vote for the left or for the right of the spectrum, all the while recognising that we should probably concentrate on the middle. In society, we are either towards the top or towards the bottom - with the reality being that we should all be more towards the middle.

 

"The rich do not HAVE to share with the poor"

I disagree with that one really.... although no easy answer...


Say there are 10 gallons of water on an island and 100 people and 1 person decides to build a tank to put it in.... does he "own" the 10 galloon.. does it give him the right to sell it to the 99?


Or is everyone entitled to a share of water as a basic human right?

I travel to India a lot and basically there are people living in opulence whilst their houses and streets are surrounded by people living under tarpaulins...

I am not a socialist or communist ... but it is pretty obvious to me that we are all in this together and we have to share it out fairly.....


But that does not mean that I agree that a person with 7 kids on disability benefit who stays at home watching tv all day should take more money than someone who works their butt off...

oh.... I don't like politics!

 

Now we are coming close to it - for basic human essentials sharing is right but for frivolous spending it is not. So by all means use taxes to provide basic welfare benefits and a standard of living that keeps a roof over your head,clothes on your back and food in the stomach. Also for basic education (not sending the whole population to so called Universities to study Media and Photography), for defense.

But DONT insist that because someone has a lot more than you then you are permitted to take a lot from him because you want 5 pairs of shoes because your neighbour has 5.

 

I am not sure what we are coming close to.... tell me when we get there!

 

My point, spectacularly missed, was that after WWI we messed up the peace and hence the rise of Hitler. The same can be argued for WWII because the eradication of Palestine after the war has direct consequences today. I don't profess to know what the solution is but the problem is somewhat of our making. Perhaps if there was still a Palestinian state with Jerusalem being a bit like East/West Berlin? Not ideal but I do wonder if had that scenario been implemented we would not be in quite the mess we are today.

Agreed, but she went too far the other way. She had an enormous majority in the Commons (but not in the votes cast by the people) giving her almost absolute power and as we all know: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It was a deliberate policy Leo, homeowners soon become 'conservative'. It meant a lack of income for the local authorities to maintain existing stock and they were not allowed to use the money to build new stock. Not a mistake, deliberate policy.

She made sure those industries became non-viable. Not in every case, obviously, there is a limit to how much time we had with 'viable' coal and steel but she made damned sure it came to an early end.

They were forced into upholding politically motivated laws and therein lies the problem. There was no opposition able to stop bad laws coming in (such was the majority in Parliament) with the only aim being to put the workers back in their place.

Not a whole lot we can do about cheap markets elsewhere except protect our own. It is our reluctance to pay the ultimate higher cost to keep British communities working (for every pit job lost you will see more jobs go within that community), British goods in manufacture... we insist on cheap food, cheap clothes etc. The result? Cheap imports from places that are 150 years behind us in terms of socio-ethics (recent tragic events in Bangladesh highlight the point) and cultures where life is cheap -who'd be a miner in China? We reap what we sow.

Not at the time it hadn't. We could and should have been self sufficient in oil and gas for a long time, but we gave it away; a resource for and of the people given over to private business. The policy was high unemployment, low wages. Created thousands of jobs? Well there were tens of thousands of unemployed to fill them. Lies, damned lies and statistics methinks.

The trouble is that many 'Christians' are just people who go to a church on a Sunday and do not really understand the meaning of what it is to be truly Christian. I know from personal experience what it is like to be employed by a fire and brimstone Baptist who thinks God is to be feared and obeyed and that he is the person to put that fear into others. He is the most un-Christian man I've ever met even if he was a church going man. Just nasty. Still, at least he is not a sexual predator like a significantly sized minority within various religious groups. I am no Catholic (so much blood on their hands it will not wash) but even I can see that the new Pontiff is, on the face of things, more like a true Christian.

Democratic in this instance when it suited her own ends. Though to be fair I am totally in favour of one man one vote by secret ballot as there is much less chance of bullying and intimidation.

Not distorted, a different perspective.

 

This post is just to answer some accusations by Toby on what is supposed to be a joke thread. Ignore it unless you can be bothered to find what preceded it. I felt it better to answer him on a thread nobody much cares about Quotes are from Toby's ramblings.

Toby – man up would you – this has nothing to do with Dan – you are just pissed off about the joke you made the other day and have wrongly remembered ME as the one who objected. In fact it was a Swansea fan and in my post I defended your right to post it while admitting I did not like it. I suggested – and still do that some jokes are better left to the General Forum.

You respect Theo’s right to find it offensive – but not mine

I don’t remember you being categorised as someone who does not belong on this board – refresh our memory if you can. I do remember something about some things being better on the general forum. Yes – you are annoyed and have singled ME out as the object of your tantrum. Tell Hornette and Baby Dan if you think they are allowing a”clique” and not “integrating” new posters – they will be horrified at your accusation. The way I see it is that everyone is welcomed here and encouraged to post – Scullion and one or two others are good examples of recent usage.

If I remember rightly I have mentioned Dan once since our “spat” We exchanged PMs, Dan put up an apology thread and that ended it. Perhaps you should ask Dan if he thinks I am victimising him – or even mentioning him. You clearly do not even understand the Strax comment so I will explain as it was intended humourously – I caught the credits for Dr Who (not a programme I watch) and there was an actor called DAN STARKEY who plays a character called STRAX – hence my comment. I expect Dan understood it as he probably knows he has a famous name-sake. You are correct that it is NOT fair to “bring someone up on everything they say” (as if that makes any sense) and that was what I was angry with Dan for – he followed me across threads to have a go at me – but that was what got resolved. Since then I have not criticised Dan for ANYTHING – until my agreement with Theo.

.

Created by an evil force? – oh dear dear dear.

Yes it does – everyone has an equal voice – but that includes the right to disagree with others - politely

No – do what you like about OFH and BB’s jokes – if you don’t like them then be a man and so so and why – they are reasonable people and will listen to you.

.
Pathetic excuse for having a go at all and sundry – oh I am going to be nasty but it is not me but the drink speaking – cowardly – be a man.

.

For no reason is wrong – he kept having a go at me – but we resolved that – only you think it is still continuing.

.

Glad you don’t like reps –you wont mind negative ones then - I negative repped you after I read this as you don’t care.

You ARE picking on me – but I don’t care as I don’t value the opinion of someone who can say he dislikes Mrs T because his daddy was a teacher and told him she was bad. You are not defending Dan as he is not being attacked – and if he was you would be defending him against Theo – be honest.

Tell them

.

Find ALL the examples over the past two weeks since I returned that you claim are me singling him out. Apart from the Strax comment intended nicely you wont find any.


Toby - you have a vivid imagination - if you can back up your accusations with facts do so - otherwise I and everyone else is entitled to think you are just being silly.

 

I've got a real problem here - can people stop making doctor who references please - my user name is after a character in some books by Colin Bateman and not that poxy bloody prgramme

To try and clear the air though I would have to say that I don't think Leonardo has been picking on me though i did find the post criticising my joke a bit strong. However, that's just the way people are - he felt passionately about it and made that point. No criticism of you Leo - just pointing out that we all have different ways of going about things and as long as it isn't abusive (yes mea culpa) I respect that.

I like Toby and it's true that in general terms his and my humour are more on the edge than a lot of posters on here. I accept that point and have agreed I wonlt make such jokes in the future. I also like the fact that whilst people might disagree with his reasons for doing so he chose to defend me. I think we'd all feel the same.

Let's be honest, the only thing a lot of us have in common is a love for a football club so I'd say we should just concentrate on that rather than try to discuss issues that we're never going to agree on. Our club, the one that we love, is playing a little game of football tomorrow. Let's focus on that.

I hope i haven't ipset anyone - i do have a habbit of shooting from the hip and regretting it later - but i don't want to ruin this board anymore than anyone else. Hopefully we can all move on and play our part in keeping this as one of the friendliest boards on not 606.

 

I Ukip is breath of fresh air in UkPolitics might make the big boys wake up .

 

I think this is one of the best posts anyone has posted for a long time. Considered, constructive and cohesive. Not many people are aware Dan that you actually offered to leave here if that would mean that I would return - a kind and generous offer - and that I said I would not return if you left - which is what made Toby's post all the more strange as I felt our differences were settled.

Mea culpa on Dan Starkey and Strax - have never heard of let alone read anything by Colin Bateman and assumed you were a Dr Who fan - there must be some out there.

Have a drop of rep

COYH

 

Top stuff fellas...

 

Hate UKIP and everything they stand for - suspect they are BNP in drag

 

How I love that description. Think I will keep that one for later use when Mme Le Penn starts sounding off again.

 

Agreed......