Rich Socialists - do as I say, not as I do
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
Do you see the language you're using? Maybe you should take a quick look back through the way you've talked to me on several threads that I've been trying to maintain a reasonable discussion on, and see whether or not it's you who is the hypocrite here. I've seen a lot of your posts and you're the same in almost every single one - confrontational, dismissive, and patronising to anyone who doesn't share your view. You're a troll at best.
1. I am discussing the thread subject - it's about people who are hypocrticial in their beliefs2. Few people on here appear to share your views
3. Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrite!!
CamMoreRon said:
I told you if you want to discuss anything further then contact me directly using the PM link on my profile. I had a strong suspicion that you wouldn't have the balls, and I guess I was right!
More threats?
I'll continue to comment on these threads as I (and the moderators) see fit.
CamMoreRon said:
Prove me wrong: I'd really enjoy putting you in your place when you don't have the comfort of your forum friends. 
Time and time again you demonstrate how little you know about the topics you comment on. That's been observed and commented on by many people on here.To be clear, are you suggesting that you will 'put me in my place' intellectually or physically?!
CamMoreRon said:
You will get no further response from me on this subject on this forum.
Great, I'm sure that many people on here will be over the moon if you stop posting your nonsense!Edited by sidicks on Sunday 2nd November 17:04
crankedup said:
Thatcher and her Government will always be despised...
Then: Thatcher won 44 per cent of the vote in 1979, 42 per cent in 1983 and 42 per cent in 1987. How unpopular is that. The suspicion has to be that you meant to say how unpopular Thatcher was with socialist bully boys and their red flag waving followers. Both got a timely metaphorical handbagging and a lesson in who runs the country. That was something Thatcher excelled at, unlike the insipid PR fluffers, Labour's hypocritical incompetent failures and LibDem six-percenter nonentities of today.
Now:
YouGov Poll said:
Prime Ministers: Thatcher the greatest, Brown the most terrible.
She got 4x as many votes as Anthony aka the grinning jackanape.crankedup said:
...as much for closing the mining industry...
How can this be forgotten so soon, is selective memory at work?
The decline in mining output, in percentages, was as follows.
11 years of Thatcher: 33%
11 years before Thatcher: 45%
11 years after Thatcher (Major and Blair): 72%
11 years of New Labour (Blair and Brown): 64%
crankedup said:
...as the lack of forethought into how the sacked workers would be able to earn a crust.
A bizarre notion, Dependency Max. Firstly if it needs aiming at anyone then it should be Scargill - not the ideal type to depend on as people found out.
Secondly it has never been the government's role to decide where people will work.
If people losing one job can't get another then it's down to their employability and/or their effort, each of which is their own responsibility.
Quite possibly some people were fooled by Union fools and arnchair revolutionary fools into thinking they had a job for life, and did nothing about the reality of their position, which is a shame but it's not down to Thatcher.
Mr_B said:
Speaking of bad PR, I like the no win situation of Ed meeting a beggar best, and giving her 2p ?
Not sure what the lead up to this was, but oh how he must have cringed inside with all those cameras seeing that photo op coming. Could have only got better if she'd said ' thank you for letting me come to your country to beg' .
What a great picture; it looks as if Millibland doesn't want to look at her and thinking, damn you look like one of the lot we threw the doors open to and there you are embarrassing me...Not sure what the lead up to this was, but oh how he must have cringed inside with all those cameras seeing that photo op coming. Could have only got better if she'd said ' thank you for letting me come to your country to beg' .
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
Thatcher and her Government will always be despised...
Quite possibly some people were fooled by Union fools and arnchair revolutionary fools into thinking they had a job for life, and did nothing about the reality of their position, which is a shame but it's not down to Thatcher.
h had thought to get the Japanese to open some car factories here to give real jobs for people... The TUC and unions such as the TGWU lead by Ron Todd, would never organise protests, propose composite motions at conference against such a scheme and generally decry the evil yellow slave drivers, would they? Oh wait etc
Countdown said:
If the two places are considered "permanent" by HMRC then the payments would be taxed. There is no exemption for MPs.
What makes you think MPs are exempt from HMRC rules?
Because they have their own specific set of rules that apply to them and no-one else. The basic permanent workplace test would be applied if a non MP declared the same working patterns.What makes you think MPs are exempt from HMRC rules?
sidicks said:
A very poor comparison.
In the former those people are simply warning that imposing significant additional regulatory burdens and costs on an industry that contributes significantly to the economy is a very bad idea, given the relative ease with which these people can do the same jobs in a different jurisdiction.
In the latter case, the government (taxpayers) was subsidising one particular industry that had no long term future and the striking miners were trying to hold the country to ransom to achieve even greater subsidies.
wrong, both are cases of special pleading and should be treated with contempt.In the former those people are simply warning that imposing significant additional regulatory burdens and costs on an industry that contributes significantly to the economy is a very bad idea, given the relative ease with which these people can do the same jobs in a different jurisdiction.
In the latter case, the government (taxpayers) was subsidising one particular industry that had no long term future and the striking miners were trying to hold the country to ransom to achieve even greater subsidies.
sidicks said:
A very poor comparison.
In the former those people are simply warning that imposing significant additional regulatory burdens and costs on an industry that contributes significantly to the economy is a very bad idea, given the relative ease with which these people can do the same jobs in a different jurisdiction.
In the latter case, the government (taxpayers) was subsidising one particular industry that had no long term future and the striking miners were trying to hold the country to ransom to achieve even greater subsidies.
wrong, both are cases of special pleading and should be treated with contempt.In the former those people are simply warning that imposing significant additional regulatory burdens and costs on an industry that contributes significantly to the economy is a very bad idea, given the relative ease with which these people can do the same jobs in a different jurisdiction.
In the latter case, the government (taxpayers) was subsidising one particular industry that had no long term future and the striking miners were trying to hold the country to ransom to achieve even greater subsidies.
NicD said:
wrong, both are cases of special pleading and should be treated with contempt.
Maybe you simply don't understand the difference between a) a group of people already being subsidised by taxpayers who wanted increased and ongoing subsidies compared to b) an industry that provides significant tax income for the country providing a genuine warning as to the likely implications of inappropriate or excessive regulatory constraints and policies.Not to worry, I'm sure most other people understand!
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 2nd November 19:29
sidicks said:
NicD said:
wrong, both are cases of special pleading and should be treated with contempt.
Maybe you simply don't understand the difference between a) a group of people already being subsidised by taxpayers who wanted increased and ongoing subsidies compared to b) an industry that provides significant tax income for the country providing a genuine warning as to the likely implications of inappropriate or excessive regulatory constraints and policies.Not to worry, I'm sure most other people understand!
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 2nd November 19:29
no, you are correct, you are the clever sophisticate while I am a dumb hick.
Like I said, both beneath contempt.
NicD said:
you possibly have forgotten the sociopaths masquerading as bankers brought the country to its knees in 2008, requiring massive subsidies and suffering no penalty.
no, you are correct, you are the clever sophisticate while I am a dumb hick.
Like I said, both beneath contempt.
Which investment banks required 'massive subsidies'?no, you are correct, you are the clever sophisticate while I am a dumb hick.
Like I said, both beneath contempt.
Since NicD never stated investment banks specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_b...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_St...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_b...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_St...
Murph7355 said:
I suspect his memory is significantly better than your grasp of the facts of the situation.
The facts:A bunch of sociopaths in expensive suits ran the economy in to the ground with reckless coke-fuelled dick-swinging gambling, thinking they were f-ing invincible. They weren't.. the economy crashed to the ground because it was based on fairy dust and non-existent money. We bailed them out to the tune of seventeen metric f*cktonnes of cash, and despite f*cking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in this country, and being firmly in our debt, rather than wind their dicks in and be responsible, or even humbled, for a little bit, they still thought it appropriate to give themselves enormous bonuses.
Think that pretty much sums up the situation.. did I miss anything?
CamMoreRon said:
The facts:
A bunch of sociopaths in expensive suits ran the economy in to the ground with reckless coke-fuelled dick-swinging gambling, thinking they were f-ing invincible. They weren't.. the economy crashed to the ground because it was based on fairy dust and non-existent money. We bailed them out to the tune of seventeen metric f*cktonnes of cash, and despite f*cking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in this country, and being firmly in our debt, rather than wind their dicks in and be responsible, or even humbled, for a little bit, they still thought it appropriate to give themselves enormous bonuses.
Think that pretty much sums up the situation.. did I miss anything?
Sorry, I thought you said "facts".A bunch of sociopaths in expensive suits ran the economy in to the ground with reckless coke-fuelled dick-swinging gambling, thinking they were f-ing invincible. They weren't.. the economy crashed to the ground because it was based on fairy dust and non-existent money. We bailed them out to the tune of seventeen metric f*cktonnes of cash, and despite f*cking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in this country, and being firmly in our debt, rather than wind their dicks in and be responsible, or even humbled, for a little bit, they still thought it appropriate to give themselves enormous bonuses.
Think that pretty much sums up the situation.. did I miss anything?
B
CamMoreRon said:
Since NicD never stated investment banks specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_b...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_St...
Looks like yet another CamMoreRon epic fail....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_b...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_St...
crankedup said:
Your second para', whilst we talk about 'holding the Country to ransom' this mirrors the investment banking industry reactions to proposed and activated new regulation policies.
NicD said:
completely agree re comparison of inv bankers vs striking miners but fail to see your point re the Government response. Far from despising Thatcher, she went up hugely in my estimation. Please present your evidence that there was a culpable 'lack of forethought into how the sacked workers would be able to earn a crust.'
Sidicks said:
Which investment banks required 'massive subsidies'?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff