Rich Socialists - do as I say, not as I do

[Digga]

There are a variety of definitions and, since socialism covers a fairly broad spectrum, it can mean many things, but the idealism that most champagne (i.e. rich) socialists clash with is this:

Wikki said:

Socialists tend to argue that "capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[ukwill]

Randy Winkman said:

ukwill said:

Randy Winkman said:

It is a rather pathetic article that completely dies a death near the end. But is appeals to a few Toryboy PHers so it's par for the course for the Telegraph.

Like a mirror of The Graun then, just with an actual comprehension of finance & economics, as opposed to an irrational hatred of both.

So the Telegraph is just as biased - but you agree with it, so it's OK?

In matters of finance and economics I find the Telegraph to be more balanced. But then compared to the Graun, that isn't much of an accolade.

[smegmore]

LucreLout said:

Generally low IQ, greedy, lazy, hypocritical tts. That's what experience has taught me socialists are. Care to explain what you think a socialist is?

wow.

Have you just beamed in from the 1920s ?

[CamMoreRon]

smegmore said:

wow.

Have you just beamed in from the 1920s ?

Probably just beamed in from Murdoch's bumhole.

[chimster]

[edh]

davepoth said:

FredClogs said:

Socialist, bunch of s, eh!

Tsk...

Any of you "capitalist" pigs care to explain to a thicko at the back of the class exactly what you think a "socialist" is?

Generally, someone who is against the principle of the personal accumulation of capital.

Socialism would suggest that you take only what you need, and give everything else back for the benefit of society. In that way, things like museums, libraries, and theatres can be state funded and available for all, rather than just the rich. The pursuit of money becomes unimportant so people can concentrate on the things they are good at rather than the things that pay the best.

Show me a socialist that actually does that, and I'll eat my sock.

Here's one that immediately springs to mind..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warw...

Hope the sock is tasty..

[Countdown]

edh said:

Here's one that immediately springs to mind..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warw...

Hope the sock is tasty..

There are 3 "socialist" MPs listed there. Should that be 3 socks?

[turbobloke]

edh said:

davepoth said:

FredClogs said:

Socialist, bunch of s, eh!

Tsk...

Any of you "capitalist" pigs care to explain to a thicko at the back of the class exactly what you think a "socialist" is?

Generally, someone who is against the principle of the personal accumulation of capital.

Socialism would suggest that you take only what you need, and give everything else back for the benefit of society. In that way, things like museums, libraries, and theatres can be state funded and available for all, rather than just the rich. The pursuit of money becomes unimportant so people can concentrate on the things they are good at rather than the things that pay the best.

Show me a socialist that actually does that, and I'll eat my sock.

Here's one that immediately springs to mind..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warw...

Hope the sock is tasty..

Hold the TK

He only gave away a bit more than half of his salary, with an MP's pay that leaves a king's ransom way above the national median wage, and there's no indication that he raids his piggybank to pay extra taxes thus keeping 'only what he needs'. Window dressing, pah! All the same, fair play to him, he's closer to the pointless and failed ideals of socialism than most of his ilk, and while impoverishing of self is freedom of choice, forcing it on others is the precise opposite.

[wolves_wanderer]

LucreLout said:

FredClogs said:

Any of you "capitalist" pigs care to explain to a thicko at the back of the class exactly what you think a "socialist" is?

Generally low IQ, greedy, lazy, hypocritical tts. That's what experience has taught me socialists are. Care to explain what you think a socialist is?

You forgot envious as well. You need that for NP&E bingo

[turbobloke]

wolves_wanderer said:

LucreLout said:

FredClogs said:

Any of you "capitalist" pigs care to explain to a thicko at the back of the class exactly what you think a "socialist" is?

Generally low IQ, greedy, lazy, hypocritical tts. That's what experience has taught me socialists are. Care to explain what you think a socialist is?

You forgot envious as well.

Good spot, but spiteful and vindictive are also needed.

[LucreLout]

ukwill said:

In matters of finance and economics I find the Telegraph to be more balanced. But then compared to the Graun, that isn't much of an accolade.

That's because the groan isn't the lefty Telegraph. The lefty Telegraph is the Observer. The groan is the lefty daily mail - same quality of reporting, same level of bias, and all done for the same reasons.

[LucreLout]

smegmore said:

wow.

Have you just beamed in from the 1920s ?

No, but I have been drowned in socialist spite and dogma since the 70s.
Show me a socialist that doesn't avoid tax. Show me a socialist that declines any compensation above the national average. Show me a socialist that pays anymore tax than the least they can get away with. They don't exist. They never did. The millionaire union barrons like bob crow had no connection to the working man. The millionaire labour leadership have more trust funds than anyone I know in the City. Socialists are greedy, self serving scum, who drain the working man dry year after year to enrich themselves at his expense while pretending to have his best interests at heart. They disgust me. All of them.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

Hold the TK

He only gave away a bit more than half of his salary, with an MP's pay that leaves a king's ransom way above the national median wage, and there's no indication that he raids his piggybank to pay extra taxes thus keeping 'only what he needs'. Window dressing, pah! All the same, fair play to him, he's closer to the pointless and failed ideals of socialism than most of his ilk, and while impoverishing of self is freedom of choice, forcing it on others is the precise opposite.

Not quite - he took the average engineering wage in Coventry, so not a "king's ransom" by any means. But I'll settle for half a sock, with custard

[edh]

LucreLout said:

smegmore said:

wow.

Have you just beamed in from the 1920s ?

Show me a socialist that doesn't avoid tax. Show me a socialist that declines any compensation above the national average. Show me a socialist that pays anymore tax than the least they can get away with. They don't exist. They never did.

I just showed you one

All that outrage doesn't really make a convincing case. Are you really saying that the labour front bench have more money in trust than anyone in the City? or just that you don't know anyone with any money in trusts? I think "millionaire" (not sure about that one) Bob Crow was very much in touch with his members - who got a pretty good deal from their union.

[Countdown]

edh said:

Not quite - he took the average engineering wage in Coventry, so not a "king's ransom" by any means. But I'll settle for half a sock, with custard

Ah yes but he should have taken the average wage of somebody in Burkina Faso, otherwise he's not a proper "Socialist".

All socialists should, by definition, be living under bridges wearing sackcloths innit.

[crankedup]

CamMoreRon said:

smegmore said:

wow.

Have you just beamed in from the 1920s ?

Probably just beamed in from Murdoch's bumhole.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

Hold the TK

He only gave away a bit more than half of his salary, with an MP's pay that leaves a king's ransom way above the national median wage, and there's no indication that he raids his piggybank to pay extra taxes thus keeping 'only what he needs'. Window dressing, pah! All the same, fair play to him, he's closer to the pointless and failed ideals of socialism than most of his ilk, and while impoverishing of self is freedom of choice, forcing it on others is the precise opposite.

Not quite - he took the average engineering wage in Coventry, so not a "king's ransom" by any means. But I'll settle for half a sock, with custard

Bet he still took more than the median wage and kept "more than he needs" and that's "not fair"

[crankedup]

LucreLout said:

smegmore said:

wow.

Have you just beamed in from the 1920s ?

No, but I have been drowned in socialist spite and dogma since the 70s.
Show me a socialist that doesn't avoid tax. Show me a socialist that declines any compensation above the national average. Show me a socialist that pays anymore tax than the least they can get away with. They don't exist. They never did. The millionaire union barrons like bob crow had no connection to the working man. The millionaire labour leadership have more trust funds than anyone I know in the City. Socialists are greedy, self serving scum, who drain the working man dry year after year to enrich themselves at his expense while pretending to have his best interests at heart. They disgust me. All of them.

No such thing as Socialists in the U.K. well other than a few true die-hards. Most are almost centre Politics. That aside you clearly have a serious grudge having drowned in Socialist spite and dogma. Union member by any chance, just curious?

[crankedup]

Countdown said:

edh said:

Not quite - he took the average engineering wage in Coventry, so not a "king's ransom" by any means. But I'll settle for half a sock, with custard

Ah yes but he should have taken the average wage of somebody in Burkina Faso, otherwise he's not a proper "Socialist".

All socialists should, by definition, be living under bridges wearing sackcloths innit.

No room for 'Socialists' under the bridges in U.S.A. that's all been taken by middle class workers who found themselves bankrupt following job loss.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

CamMoreRon said:

smegmore said:

wow.

Have you just beamed in from the 1920s ?

Probably just beamed in from Murdoch's bumhole.

If it was so, you'd have to ask whether the recognition derived from experience or observation.