Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
Because they might find out that if they lighten-up and engage with people rather than look like a bunch of stuffed shirts that know better they might avoid the sort of monstrous cock-up like they had a couple of weeks ago. And before any one says "But they won", they didn't. They screwed up massively.
They did win.They also screwed up massively.
That notwithstanding, they still won.
durbster said:
Companies making vast profits like this is exactly what they're objecting to. Their beef is with the poor legislation that allows companies to make vast profits, not with the companies themselves.
If a company provides a product or service that billions of people are prepared to pay for, why should they NOT make large profits?FN2TypeR said:
Also, she was a presidential candidate, they traditionally stand aside after defeat
As do failed Labour leaders... in fact McDonnell was saying not so long ago on Marr that would remain the case i.e. if Jezza lost the election he would step down.He's breaking promises and he didn't even win. I don't suppose McDonnell will be too happy with him.
sidicks said:
durbster said:
Companies making vast profits like this is exactly what they're objecting to. Their beef is with the poor legislation that allows companies to make vast profits, not with the companies themselves.
If a company provides a product or service that billions of people are prepared to pay for, why should they NOT make large profits?Stumbled across the following while searching for something else.
What are your views on it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/drug-gian...
gooner1 said:
Stumbled across the following while searching for something else.
What are your views on it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/drug-gian...
Not sure that's relevant to Apple!What are your views on it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/drug-gian...
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Limited socialism is not a bad thing,.
But many here (and I detect a Corbynite or two in the crowd saying similar), are not wrong when they suggest that the Tories have to sell something more positive than 'more of the same plus a little bit worse' like so
The Tories also need to return to solid conservative ideas and values. As I've said before - that does not include Snooper's Charters and handy adjustments to human rights. To any thinking/educated person, these things smack of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
There is not a word in that (albeit edited) that I can find to diagree with. The Tories also need to connect with the way people actually worry about their jobs, their kids, their ageing parents and how we are all supposed to all muddle along to make it work.But many here (and I detect a Corbynite or two in the crowd saying similar), are not wrong when they suggest that the Tories have to sell something more positive than 'more of the same plus a little bit worse' like so
The Tories also need to return to solid conservative ideas and values. As I've said before - that does not include Snooper's Charters and handy adjustments to human rights. To any thinking/educated person, these things smack of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
There was more "we're in it together" in south Birmingham in the early 80s when we were all poor compared with mow, than there is now; we seem far more divided on wealth/class/religion/race/sexuality/gender than then; what happened?
TheChampers said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Limited socialism is not a bad thing,.
But many here (and I detect a Corbynite or two in the crowd saying similar), are not wrong when they suggest that the Tories have to sell something more positive than 'more of the same plus a little bit worse' like so
The Tories also need to return to solid conservative ideas and values. As I've said before - that does not include Snooper's Charters and handy adjustments to human rights. To any thinking/educated person, these things smack of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
There is not a word in that (albeit edited) that I can find to disagree with. The Tories also need to connect with the way people actually worry about their jobs, their kids, their ageing parents and how we are all supposed to all muddle along to make it work.But many here (and I detect a Corbynite or two in the crowd saying similar), are not wrong when they suggest that the Tories have to sell something more positive than 'more of the same plus a little bit worse' like so
The Tories also need to return to solid conservative ideas and values. As I've said before - that does not include Snooper's Charters and handy adjustments to human rights. To any thinking/educated person, these things smack of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
There was more "we're in it together" in south Birmingham in the early 80s when we were all poor compared with mow, than there is now; we seem far more divided on wealth/class/religion/race/sexuality/gender than then; what happened?
And the simple historical fact that poverty doesn't divide us - disparity of results does.
There are some extremely good lectures/writings on these subjects, most of which originate in the US and Canada, but dinner is calling just now...
TheChampers said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Limited socialism is not a bad thing,.
But many here (and I detect a Corbynite or two in the crowd saying similar), are not wrong when they suggest that the Tories have to sell something more positive than 'more of the same plus a little bit worse' like so
The Tories also need to return to solid conservative ideas and values. As I've said before - that does not include Snooper's Charters and handy adjustments to human rights. To any thinking/educated person, these things smack of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
There is not a word in that (albeit edited) that I can find to diagree with. The Tories also need to connect with the way people actually worry about their jobs, their kids, their ageing parents and how we are all supposed to all muddle along to make it work.But many here (and I detect a Corbynite or two in the crowd saying similar), are not wrong when they suggest that the Tories have to sell something more positive than 'more of the same plus a little bit worse' like so
The Tories also need to return to solid conservative ideas and values. As I've said before - that does not include Snooper's Charters and handy adjustments to human rights. To any thinking/educated person, these things smack of authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
There was more "we're in it together" in south Birmingham in the early 80s when we were all poor compared with mow, than there is now; we seem far more divided on wealth/class/religion/race/sexuality/gender than then; what happened?
dimots said:
A bit off topic but posting here because someone castigated me prior to the election for sugesting retired people were the main Tory voter group 
Would make sense if people voted out of self-interest as the Conservatives heavily incentivised retirees again, obviously the grey vote is growing demographic so are likely to become increasingly influential in politics. It seems like a safe bet but I would argue that after the brexit referendum people who would normally be complacent about voting where shocked into voting but I'm not sure if that will persist. The Conservatives do also need a more broadly appealing set of policy proposals and someone engaging to lead the party.Word of caution here as it usually it takes 6 to 8 months to assemble the government statistics after an election.
It's been interesting to see peoples reaction to Jeremy Corbyn as he has more traditional socialist values that have been missing from Labour party politics. A few years ago people where bemoaning the lack of genuine political choices they faced but now they have more diverse choices a few find it frightening to consider that people may vote for someone who represents making a genuine political choice? Despite the usual groaning all progress achieved in politics is likely to rely on electing people who champion ideas that deviate from the conventional and established views previously held.
gooner1 said:
sidicks said:
Not sure that's relevant to Apple!
But to making large profits and providing a service?
I have no problem whatsoever with a person/ company providing a service/ product that millions decide they would like to use in order to improve their life/ lifestyle as that is a choice issue.
I personally find Facebook the most vile self obsessed vacuous invention in my lifetime but good luck to the founder as many billions thrive off it voluntarily.
However, I do have a big problem with companies that carry out things like medical research in order to provide life changing medicines only to massively inflate the price as they know the reliance people will have on them.
You need to define the product against the need in my opinion. That way you can separate into exploitation against lifestyle. That's where Corbyn and the rest of his idiots fail in today's world.
His utopia was generations ago thank goodness.
I refer to my previous post on him, I would rather break bread with a Ian Huntley than this waste of DNA, Corbyn is far more of a danger to my kids and their future.
Jonesy23 said:
If you actually need this explaining to you then you aren't competent to understand any answer you'll be given.
Perfect Corbyn supporter though.
jPerfect Corbyn supporter though.
Tell you what Jonesy', instead of flaunting offf like a petulant child, why not
try exercising that massively superior intellect ,you percieve to possess.
You can use crayons ,if you think it will help,I'll even let you choose the colours.
No rush, d
head.Not sure I'd agree with Corbyn being perfect, but I'll pass him your endorsment, if ever we meet.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff