Owen Jones v the Princes; who has served the country most?
Discussion
Sir Humphrey said:
longblackcoat said:
You've looked at the percentages donated, right?
Oh, and Arthur Brooks? This is the same man who argues that the more religious you are, the happier you are? Not sure I'd be citing him as an expert in very much at all.
Are you going to argue with his data or analysis at all?Oh, and Arthur Brooks? This is the same man who argues that the more religious you are, the happier you are? Not sure I'd be citing him as an expert in very much at all.
In short, I think he's talking b
ks.longblackcoat said:
Why? You have an opinion, backed by the assertions of a man who runs a right-wing think-tank and believes that the happiest people are the most religious whilst ignoring that the Nordics, some of the happiest and most content people on earth, are some of the least religiously observant.
In short, I think he's talking bks.
Provide some evidence to go against his findings and I will happily change my belief.In short, I think he's talking b
ks.Jones is a charlatan. He lives for the ructions he causes. He knows his combative style and controversial gob will get attention far beyond his ability to attract worthy criticism. With his ignorant refusal to let others contest his dogma and taken together with his setting off of hares just to watch the hunt followers scrambling, he laughs all the way to the bank. Free thinking? No, it's only because he knows he won't be in a position to have to prove anything. Praise from Brand? Talk about a death knell.
andymadmak said:
so what stops the left wingers taking advantage of those same tax concessions?
Surely it's their moral compass? They know that in using those avoidance techniques they are quite literally robbing the less fortunate of both money and opportunity.
None of them would dare ask for advice on mitigating tax on property, advantageous investment vehicles etc...
If they did, they'd surely just be sitting on borrowed time before some investigative journo had a look at their accounts...
longblackcoat said:
Why? You have an opinion, backed by the assertions of a man who runs a right-wing think-tank and believes that the happiest people are the most religious whilst ignoring that the Nordics, some of the happiest and most content people on earth, are some of the least religiously observant.
In short, I think he's talking bks.
Happiness also accompanied by the highest suicide rates. Strange kind of contentment. In short, I think he's talking b
ks.crankedup said:
His an entrepreneur doing well for himself, sort of a Capitalist I suppose.
No. He is no entrepreneur. What investment has he made? What risk has he taken? What exactly has he created of any value? No doubt he is doing well for himself, which is really what he is all about. That does not make him a Capitalist either, since he does not appear to invest his wealth in trade or industry. So that just leaves "noisy vitriolic hysterical hyperbolic lying bigoted rabble rousing leftist nonentity" which I think is a far more accurate summation of the man.
andymadmak said:
No. He is no entrepreneur. What investment has he made? What risk has he taken? What exactly has he created of any value? No doubt he is doing well for himself, which is really what he is all about. That does not make him a Capitalist either, since he does not appear to invest his wealth in trade or industry.
So that just leaves "noisy vitriolic hysterical hyperbolic lying bigoted rabble rousing leftist nonentity" which I think is a far more accurate summation of the man.
If your only definition of value is how much profit a man makes then I'm not at all surprised you don't agree with a word he says. So that just leaves "noisy vitriolic hysterical hyperbolic lying bigoted rabble rousing leftist nonentity" which I think is a far more accurate summation of the man.
CamMoreRon said:
andymadmak said:
No. He is no entrepreneur. What investment has he made? What risk has he taken? What exactly has he created of any value? No doubt he is doing well for himself, which is really what he is all about. That does not make him a Capitalist either, since he does not appear to invest his wealth in trade or industry.
So that just leaves "noisy vitriolic hysterical hyperbolic lying bigoted rabble rousing leftist nonentity" which I think is a far more accurate summation of the man.
If your only definition of value is how much profit a man makes then I'm not at all surprised you don't agree with a word he says. So that just leaves "noisy vitriolic hysterical hyperbolic lying bigoted rabble rousing leftist nonentity" which I think is a far more accurate summation of the man.
( before the "professionally outraged on behalf of others" brigade get their marching boots on please note that the organ donor comment is a joke. I might strongly disagree with OJs particular brand of hypocritical populist rabble rousing but I do not wish him or those like him any harm. Indeed, I wish him a long and happy life. - I just wish he'd shut up whilst living it!)
CamMoreRon said:
andymadmak said:
No. He is no entrepreneur. What investment has he made? What risk has he taken? What exactly has he created of any value? No doubt he is doing well for himself, which is really what he is all about. That does not make him a Capitalist either, since he does not appear to invest his wealth in trade or industry.
So that just leaves "noisy vitriolic hysterical hyperbolic lying bigoted rabble rousing leftist nonentity" which I think is a far more accurate summation of the man.
If your only definition of value is how much profit a man makes then I'm not at all surprised you don't agree with a word he says. So that just leaves "noisy vitriolic hysterical hyperbolic lying bigoted rabble rousing leftist nonentity" which I think is a far more accurate summation of the man.
andymadmak said:
Eh? I was responding to the suggestion that OJ is some sort of entrepreneur when he patently is not, by any definition of the term. Do keep up. I made no mention of profit whatsoever. Mind you, OJ certainly does have some potential value to society, .... perhaps as an organ donor?
( before the "professionally outraged on behalf of others" brigade get their marching boots on please note that the organ donor comment is a joke. I might strongly disagree with OJs particular brand of hypocritical populist rabble rousing but I do not wish him or those like him any harm. Indeed, I wish him a long and happy life. - I just wish he'd shut up whilst living it!)
( before the "professionally outraged on behalf of others" brigade get their marching boots on please note that the organ donor comment is a joke. I might strongly disagree with OJs particular brand of hypocritical populist rabble rousing but I do not wish him or those like him any harm. Indeed, I wish him a long and happy life. - I just wish he'd shut up whilst living it!)
wsurfa said:
Can't see the word profit mentioned, apart from by you. Perhaps blinded by your own prejudice. Again.
Incredibly ironic statement to make, given the comment above!I think profit was implied by "added of value", although I'll retract it if that's not what he meant. However, it still comes back to the (flawed) idea that the only way someone can provide value is by running a business, and that again implies that profit is the only form of value..
CamMoreRon said:
andymadmak said:
Eh? I was responding to the suggestion that OJ is some sort of entrepreneur when he patently is not, by any definition of the term. Do keep up. I made no mention of profit whatsoever. Mind you, OJ certainly does have some potential value to society, .... perhaps as an organ donor?
( before the "professionally outraged on behalf of others" brigade get their marching boots on please note that the organ donor comment is a joke. I might strongly disagree with OJs particular brand of hypocritical populist rabble rousing but I do not wish him or those like him any harm. Indeed, I wish him a long and happy life. - I just wish he'd shut up whilst living it!)
( before the "professionally outraged on behalf of others" brigade get their marching boots on please note that the organ donor comment is a joke. I might strongly disagree with OJs particular brand of hypocritical populist rabble rousing but I do not wish him or those like him any harm. Indeed, I wish him a long and happy life. - I just wish he'd shut up whilst living it!)
wsurfa said:
Can't see the word profit mentioned, apart from by you. Perhaps blinded by your own prejudice. Again.
Incredibly ironic statement to make, given the comment above!I think profit was implied by "added of value", although I'll retract it if that's not what he meant. However, it still comes back to the (flawed) idea that the only way someone can provide value is by running a business, and that again implies that profit is the only form of value..
I asked what OJ had created of any value, and by that I meant not only value in the entrepreneurial sense (as suggested by crakedup) but also in the wider sense. Does he really raise awareness of issues? I genuinely think he does not, simply because he knowingly uses lies and hyperbole to get his points across whilst simultaneously passing himself off as some sort of moral compass for modern society. The two positions jar with me because if he really wanted to show moral leadership and illustrate the inequalities of society he should not be resorting to dishonesty and demonisation of whole sections of that society to make his case. In doing so he shows himself to be no better than those he claims to despise and most certainly not worthy of the support of those he espouses to represent.
Thus he brings nothing of value to the debate, and adds nothing of value to society in my opinion.
andymadmak said:
Does he really raise awareness of issues? I genuinely think he does not, simply because he knowingly uses lies and hyperbole to get his points across whilst simultaneously passing himself off as some sort of moral compass for modern society. The two positions jar with me because if he really wanted to show moral leadership and illustrate the inequalities of society he should not be resorting to dishonesty and demonisation of whole sections of that society to make his case. In doing so he shows himself to be no better than those he claims to despise and most certainly not worthy of the support of those he espouses to represent.
Thus he brings nothing of value to the debate, and adds nothing of value to society in my opinion.
I'm struggling to think of many politicians / political class who don't match that description, but I wouldn't put OJ in that box. He's in a position where he can say the unsayable - a bit like Farage, because he doesn't have to answer to a party machine. Because of this he's very popular on the left. Anyone that annoys the Tory / UKIP tendency and creating this sort of reaction is doing something right Thus he brings nothing of value to the debate, and adds nothing of value to society in my opinion.
Sir Humphrey said:
longblackcoat said:
Any evidence of this, or is it just one of those "well known facts" which is trotted out?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?hp&_r=0[quote]Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
edh said:
Anyone that annoys the Tory / UKIP tendency and creating this sort of reaction is doing something right
Ahh, so its not about doing the right thing for the people or even telling the truth? No it's about making sure you wind up the other side of the political spectrum. How very childish. Like I said, and your point confirms, OJ clearly adds nothing of value.
andymadmak said:
edh said:
Anyone that annoys the Tory / UKIP tendency and creating this sort of reaction is doing something right
Ahh, so its not about doing the right thing for the people or even telling the truth? No it's about making sure you wind up the other side of the political spectrum. How very childish. Like I said, and your point confirms, OJ clearly adds nothing of value.
?.... andymadmak said:
Again this is simply your interpretation. And may I say its a rather sad one. Its certainly not mine. People can add value in all sorts of ways. Art, music, literature, comedy, compassion, caring, charity, to name but a few are all ways by which a person may add value but which are not necessarily defined by profit.
I asked what OJ had created of any value, and by that I meant not only value in the entrepreneurial sense (as suggested by crakedup) but also in the wider sense. Does he really raise awareness of issues? I genuinely think he does not, simply because he knowingly uses lies and hyperbole to get his points across whilst simultaneously passing himself off as some sort of moral compass for modern society. The two positions jar with me because if he really wanted to show moral leadership and illustrate the inequalities of society he should not be resorting to dishonesty and demonisation of whole sections of that society to make his case. In doing so he shows himself to be no better than those he claims to despise and most certainly not worthy of the support of those he espouses to represent.
Thus he brings nothing of value to the debate, and adds nothing of value to society in my opinion.
Right.. but you've contradicted your first paragraph with your second! Owen creates value by sharing a (very common) opinion on the political establishment. He raises awareness of some pretty important issues and does so in a really accessible and readable manner. If you have strong right-wing views then you may very well disagree with what he says, but that doesn't mean he's a liar, or an idiot, or misinformed.I asked what OJ had created of any value, and by that I meant not only value in the entrepreneurial sense (as suggested by crakedup) but also in the wider sense. Does he really raise awareness of issues? I genuinely think he does not, simply because he knowingly uses lies and hyperbole to get his points across whilst simultaneously passing himself off as some sort of moral compass for modern society. The two positions jar with me because if he really wanted to show moral leadership and illustrate the inequalities of society he should not be resorting to dishonesty and demonisation of whole sections of that society to make his case. In doing so he shows himself to be no better than those he claims to despise and most certainly not worthy of the support of those he espouses to represent.
Thus he brings nothing of value to the debate, and adds nothing of value to society in my opinion.
CamMoreRon said:
Right.. but you've contradicted your first paragraph with your second! Owen creates value by sharing a (very common) opinion on the political establishment. He raises awareness of some pretty important issues and does so in a really accessible and readable manner. If you have strong right-wing views then you may very well disagree with what he says, but that doesn't mean he's a liar, or an idiot, or misinformed.
No I have not contradicted myself. And I am not saying he is a liar because I disagree with his politics, I am saying he is a liar because he is a liar. I could also say that he is the sort of person who blames those who work for him when he is exposed as a liar because that is precisely what he has done. I could also say that he is a hypocrite because having blamed his colleagues for his own lies he then continues to repeat the lie. Really, to say that OJ creates value in the way that you assert would be like saying that an arsonist adds value by raising awareness of fire safety issues! andymadmak said:
No I have not contradicted myself. And I am not saying he is a liar because I disagree with his politics, I am saying he is a liar because he is a liar. I could also say that he is the sort of person who blames those who work for him when he is exposed as a liar because that is precisely what he has done. I could also say that he is a hypocrite because having blamed his colleagues for his own lies he then continues to repeat the lie. Really, to say that OJ creates value in the way that you assert would be like saying that an arsonist adds value by raising awareness of fire safety issues!
Clearly the arsonist is critical to the fire and health service as well as the building industry. A typical Tory attitude to do down those that are more than 2/3rds focussed on the public sector, it's all the bankers fault etc - copyright OJ 2014.
He's another one of those conceited, self-righteous, self-appointed guardian of moral values ("As a socialist, I am compelled to have an optimistic view of humanity, to believe we are not all motivated by greed, selfishness or hate")
Which implies that anyone who doesn't share his vision of a Socialist Utopia is greedy, selfish, and hateful. And which conveniently overlooks the moot point that the most murderous people of the 20th Century were Socialists* - if you consider that Socialists and bedroom revolutionaries like Jones are really polite Communists
Which implies that anyone who doesn't share his vision of a Socialist Utopia is greedy, selfish, and hateful. And which conveniently overlooks the moot point that the most murderous people of the 20th Century were Socialists* - if you consider that Socialists and bedroom revolutionaries like Jones are really polite Communists
- Stalin, Lenin, Chavez, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim II Sung, Hi Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceausescu, Mengistu Haile Mariam etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff