Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!

Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Sunday 18th October 2015
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Article in the DM on the moment the mask slipped and we saw the real Schama (and his ilk).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3277578/...
Suburbia....the power base of Mums-Net and the campaign for single injections.

He was SPOT ON
Boiling over and spitting with class hatred and unable to tolerate alternative views because of his inherent superiority.

Some liberals/lefties really are mentally ill, mind you Schama's body language makes that evident, unless he was 10-sheets to the wind.

hidetheelephants

23,756 posts

192 months

Sunday 18th October 2015
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
Some liberals/lefties really are mentally ill, mind you Schama's body language makes that evident, unless he was 10-sheets to the wind.
Not mentally ill, just another ivory tower inhabiting liberal ninny who isn't used to being contradicted.

Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Monday 19th October 2015
quotequote all
Can you imagine the disgust and pique he displays when his confident American history students have the audacity to actually question him? Or do they not dare? Why are so many Historians like that? Surely History is merely a matter of interpretation. His refusal to accept Liddle's alternative opinion, which had some validity after all, indicates a prejudice that does not sit very well with his contrived public image.

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

104 months

Monday 19th October 2015
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
Can you imagine the disgust and pique he displays when his confident American history students have the audacity to actually question him? Or do they not dare? Why are so many Historians like that? Surely History is merely a matter of interpretation. His refusal to accept Liddle's alternative opinion, which had some validity after all, indicates a prejudice that does not sit very well with his contrived public image.
Surely History is merely a matter of interpretation......No, history is ONLY fact (known), conjecture based on fact is what he is offering which, even if he is a "historian" he is allowed still to hold one. I would think whatever way you look at it, he would be able to "Out-Fact" most here.

I do not know if arguing that someone is terrible for not accepting another persons conjecture over their own conjecture is good is it ?


Edited by Stickyfinger on Monday 19th October 14:52

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Monday 19th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
DrDeAtH said:
She alleges to make £150 a week from doing peoples nails.... She must be pretty st at it to earn so little....
She said:

"I work bloody hard for my money, to provide for my children to give them everything they've got - and you're going to take it away from me and them."

She will be paying very little tax now (if any) thanks to the government increasing the tax free allowance.

£400 a week is £20,800 a year. Someone with a job would have to earn over £26,000 to take home that amount of money.

Sure the state should help single mothers with lots of children however the balance of what the parent in this case provides for her family and what the state provides for them doesn't seem very fair to me.



Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Monday 19th October 2015
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
Surely History is merely a matter of interpretation......No, history is ONLY fact (known), conjecture based on fact is what he is offering which, even if he is a "historian" he is allowed still to hold one. I would think whatever way you look at it, he would be able to "Out-Fact" most here.

I do not know if arguing that someone is terrible for not accepting another persons conjecture over their own conjecture is good is it ?


Edited by Stickyfinger on Monday 19th October 14:52
Err, in my view history is the interpretation of facts that have been reported by diarists of the time or later. Those facts have been recorded after being passed through the mincer of biased or partisan impressions! Able to 'outfact'? Of course, he's made his life's work the study of 'facts'. Like biographies, history depends on the writer! Of course he is entitled to hold whatever view he chooses to favour. The point is his dismissive and snobbish use of "suburban" to Liddle, of whom I am not a supporter, exposes his prejudiced mind and therefore brings into context the value of his views. He did himself no favours. At least, in my view and present at the time!

Garvin

5,156 posts

176 months

Monday 19th October 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
DrDeAtH said:
She alleges to make £150 a week from doing peoples nails.... She must be pretty st at it to earn so little....
She said:

"I work bloody hard for my money, to provide for my children to give them everything they've got - and you're going to take it away from me and them."

She will be paying very little tax now (if any) thanks to the government increasing the tax free allowance.

£400 a week is £20,800 a year. Someone with a job would have to earn over £26,000 to take home that amount of money.

Sure the state should help single mothers with lots of children however the balance of what the parent in this case provides for her family and what the state provides for them doesn't seem very fair to me.
Of course it's not fair. It was never designed to be fair. It was designed by Labour governments to turn as many people into degenerate benefit junkies and dependent on the state in order to lock them in as voters. It's a very simple and efffective policy if you can carry it off!

Except that basic economics tells you that the rest of the country can't provide enough state income to support all these junkies to ensure you are returned at every GE.

Except that it consigns a once proud, hard working, world leading nation into a shadow of its former self, destined to inexorably slide towards a third world existance.

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

104 months

Monday 19th October 2015
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
Err, in my view history is the interpretation of facts that have been reported by diarists of the time or later. Those facts have been recorded after being passed through the mincer of biased or partisan impressions!

Able to 'outfact'? Of course, he's made his life's work the study of 'facts'. Like biographies, history depends on the writer! Of course he is entitled to hold whatever view he chooses to favour.

The point is his dismissive and snobbish use of "suburban" to Liddle, of whom I am not a supporter, exposes his prejudiced mind and therefore brings into context the value of his views. He did himself no favours. At least, in my view and present at the time!
No, for me you describe an Historians job, not History.

Spitfires were first produced in 1936, X numbers were produced. History
Sharma says, "the Spitfire was not as good as the Bf109", an Historians view.

I would think you are reading into it to much, the "Suburban" term is no more an accurate assessment of every body in Suburbia as "the Westminster bubble" is about Parliament or "White Van man" is about everybody Essex. It does however serve to offer a general grouping of like minded persons often found in those places as do other forms of demographic terms.

I agree that he does himself no favours.....it makes it hard to pick out the facts which he presents as evidence for holding his views and those that debunk those held by that little pipsqueak Liddle.

Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
No, for me you describe an Historians job, not History.

Spitfires were first produced in 1936, X numbers were produced. History
Sharma says, "the Spitfire was not as good as the Bf109", an Historians view.

I would think you are reading into it to much, the "Suburban" term is no more an accurate assessment of every body in Suburbia as "the Westminster bubble" is about Parliament or "White Van man" is about everybody Essex. It does however serve to offer a general grouping of like minded persons often found in those places as do other forms of demographic terms.

I agree that he does himself no favours.....it makes it hard to pick out the facts which he presents as evidence for holding his views and those that debunk those held by that little pipsqueak Liddle.
I must say I enjoy his TV history progs. Similar to Sharkey, he has an impressive grasp of his subject and manages depths that others don't reach. That's my point, the historian with the exposure becomes the arbiter of the facts and is gradually taken as the authoritative source.

The 'suburban' reference is a favourite term of scorn/disgust used by self-regarding intelligentsia about those they see as common toilers with horny hands. The fact that Liddle also happens to be a journalist and is not universally known as erudite confirms in Sharma's superior mind that he is not worth listening to and has no merit. That dismissive attitude tells the truth behind the mask. Possibly.

fido

16,752 posts

254 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
Sharma says, "the Spitfire was not as good as the Bf109", an Historians view.
Yes - but you put forwards reasons for your argument e.g. "the Bf109 had a better powerplant". Dismissing someone as 'suburban' shows you up as a snob.

richie99

1,116 posts

185 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
She said:

"I work bloody hard for my money, to provide for my children to give them everything they've got - and you're going to take it away from me and them."

She will be paying very little tax now (if any) thanks to the government increasing the tax free allowance.

£400 a week is £20,800 a year. Someone with a job would have to earn over £26,000 to take home that amount of money.

Sure the state should help single mothers with lots of children however the balance of what the parent in this case provides for her family and what the state provides for them doesn't seem very fair to me.
Why should I pay for her profligate breeding and unwillingness to maintain a relationship. Note, it is not the state, it's tax payers. I can't afford more children because I want to be able to look after them and too much of my money is going to 'help single mothers with lots of children'.

Wombat3

11,968 posts

205 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
DrDeAtH said:
She alleges to make £150 a week from doing peoples nails.... She must be pretty st at it to earn so little....
She said:

"I work bloody hard for my money, to provide for my children to give them everything they've got - and you're going to take it away from me and them."

She will be paying very little tax now (if any) thanks to the government increasing the tax free allowance.

£400 a week is £20,800 a year. Someone with a job would have to earn over £26,000 to take home that amount of money.

Sure the state should help single mothers with lots of children however the balance of what the parent in this case provides for her family and what the state provides for them doesn't seem very fair to me.
Its a shame that nobody pointed out to her that other people are also working bloody hard (and seemingly much more productively) for their money too - and then a chunk of it is being taken away from them so it can be given to her.

Nobody is taking anything away from her, she's just going to be given a bit less of the money that other people earn.


edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
richie99 said:
Why should I pay for her profligate breeding and unwillingness to maintain a relationship. Note, it is not the state, it's tax payers. I can't afford more children because I want to be able to look after them and too much of my money is going to 'help single mothers with lots of children'.
Some interesting assumptions there... What happened to the father(s)? Dead, divorced, etc.. I doubt most "single mothers" chose that particular status.

Both parents have a legal responsibility to contribute to child support - I believe only half absent fathers do according to recent press reports.

irocfan

40,152 posts

189 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
richie99 said:
Why should I pay for her profligate breeding and unwillingness to maintain a relationship. Note, it is not the state, it's tax payers. I can't afford more children because I want to be able to look after them and too much of my money is going to 'help single mothers with lots of children'.
you heartless Tory bd!!! How dare you infringe on her rights to have as many children with as many baby-daddies (what a revolting phrase!) as she likes, you oppressor!

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
richie99 said:
Why should I pay for her profligate breeding and unwillingness to maintain a relationship. Note, it is not the state, it's tax payers. I can't afford more children because I want to be able to look after them and too much of my money is going to 'help single mothers with lots of children'.
That's a fair point but what do you then do when such people have multiple kids? It's not the fault of the children that their mother cannot pay for the upbringing of her kids.

steveT350C

6,728 posts

160 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all

Welshbeef

49,633 posts

197 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
That's a fair point but what do you then do when such people have multiple kids? It's not the fault of the children that their mother cannot pay for the upbringing of her kids.
You draw a line in the sand - those who have the child benefit now keep it but for the future excl those who are pregnant now. It is then their decision if they want more children of course they can BUT they will have to move to a cheaper area lower rent no sky no meals out no med summer hols no car on PCP instead run an old one. As there is no more support.
They have made a choice then if they have more then happy days but they choose how to cut their own outgoing.



I'd like a LaFerrari, get my mortgage paid off full pension from 40yo and only fly First class amor private jet.
But I don't get that - it's not fair that those pesky Billionaires have so much yet this little I ask for isn't provided by the state.

irocfan

40,152 posts

189 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
steveT350C said:
that's going to be a warzone isn't it? GG is (if she's not changed since I last saw her) as mad as a box of badgers, the business woman was on the Apprentice (but an early one so she might be at least part normal)... might be interesting

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

104 months

Tuesday 20th October 2015
quotequote all
irocfan said:
GG is (if she's not changed since I last saw her) as mad as a box of badgers
Who said Badgers


hidetheelephants

23,756 posts

192 months

Wednesday 21st October 2015
quotequote all
irocfan said:
steveT350C said:
that's going to be a warzone isn't it? GG is (if she's not changed since I last saw her) as mad as a box of badgers, the business woman was on the Apprentice (but an early one so she might be at least part normal)... might be interesting
GG is pretty reactionary these days, it's an age thing. She's still a leftie but much less so.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED