Don't vote for these Twerps

[Tangled up in Blue]

I thought it was Saddam and the way he treated the world

Oh please!:nope:

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I thought it was Saddam and the way he treated the world

Oh please!:nope:

I suppose you two jokers would prefer for him to still be around gassing people.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I suppose you two jokers would prefer for him to still be around gassing people.

Don't tell me you believe the reason why we invaded Iraq was to depose Saddam? :D

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Don't tell me you believe the reason why we invaded Iraq was to depose Saddam? :D

The US and its allies invaded Iraq to make an example of a Muslim state in the wake of 9/11 - they needed to be seen to be doing something tangible after being attacked by murderous Islamist pigs. Was there any economic self-interest factored in? Of course. But God forbid that a country should act in its own best interests, depose a murderous dictator and introduce democracy to a country that had only known fear and repression in its recent history. How awful.

 

[MK Shrimper]

The US and its allies invaded Iraq to make an example of a Muslim state in the wake of 9/11 - they needed to be seen to be doing something tangible after being attacked by murderous Islamist pigs. Was there any economic self-interest factored in? Of course. But God forbid that a country should act in its own best interests, depose a murderous dictator and introduce democracy to a country that had only known fear and repression in its recent history. How awful.

Not so keen to kick out ol' Saddam and make a big hoohah of his human rights record when he was playing ball with the west though eh?

 

[MK Shrimper]

But he had WMD which could be deployed at us within 40 minutes.

Oh yeah. I forgot. Where's that teenager's thesis again?

 

[canveyshrimper]

Oh yeah. I forgot. Where's that teenager's thesis again?

You were quick off the mark, I deleted that post as I was going to amend it.

To answer your question, probably shredded along with Blair's expenses. ;)

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Not so keen to kick out ol' Saddam and make a big hoohah of his human rights record when he was playing ball with the west though eh?

Maybe not, but better late than never. When someone can explain to me why keeping Saddam around would have been a good thing, I'll admit defeat.

 

[Lord Football]

We have a wonderful system that works well if big government twerps could leave it the hell alone. It's called capitalism.

Which is why they had to intervene when the bastions of Capitalism, the banks, failed.


Anyhow.... The basic Conservative dogma is to look after big business and the rich. Its on the assumption that if they work and do well, so does everyone else.

The thing is... essentially we are all "everyone else". And if things don't work out generally, we suffer. If things don't work out for us, we suffer. I'll never forget Tebbit's "on yer bike" speech at the height of the unemployment crisis of the early 80s. His assumption was that the unemployed were lazy and work shy, whilst also believing, incorrectly, that there were jobs out there. The Tories have always insinuated that those who struggle for whatever reason are the cause of our ills (too many single mums, too many people on benefit). It's pretty much playground bullying.

Labour USED to offer an alternative, but they sold their convictions out years ago.

 

[osymandus]

Maybe not, but better late than never. When someone can explain to me why keeping Saddam around would have been a good thing, I'll admit defeat.

WEll being an easy enemy of Iran was one thing , plus a purchaser of munitions and arms from Germany UK and France as well as the US .

If only he had'nt started to sell oil in Euro's you swine Saddam
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

Naughty !

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Which is why they had to intervene when the bastions of Capitalism, the banks, failed.


Anyhow.... The basic Conservative dogma is to look after big business and the rich. Its on the assumption that if they work and do well, so does everyone else.

The thing is... essentially we are all "everyone else". And if things don't work out generally, we suffer. If things don't work out for us, we suffer. I'll never forget Tebbit's "on yer bike" speech at the height of the unemployment crisis of the early 80s. His assumption was that the unemployed were lazy and work shy, whilst also believing, incorrectly, that there were jobs out there. The Tories have always insinuated that those who struggle for whatever reason are the cause of our ills (too many single mums, too many people on benefit). It's pretty much playground bullying.

Labour USED to offer an alternative, but they sold their convictions out years ago.

Why did the banks fail? Not because of unfettered capitalism, but because the Clinton government incentivised sub-prime lending. If the credit market had been left to function on strict principles of supply and demand, where loan applications were approved or disapproved based on the applicant's ability to pay rather than their particular hard luck story, then we wouldn't have had a banking crisis.

As to your dismissal of trickle down economic theory, your assessment seems to be based on two flawed assumptions:

1. The rich hoard all their money.

2. If you're not born rich, you can't become rich.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, social workers and diversity counsellors (and full-time trade unionists) are not going to provide employment opportunities for their fellow citizens. People who own large companies, whether they be in financial services, building, retail or entertainment do. You only 'suffer' if you think you're too good to take up a lower paid job, offered by one of the 'capitalist pigs', even if you have no relevant experience or qualifications which would be required for a better job. The world needs ditch diggers too.

And there are jobs out there. Maybe not the ones you want - but there are jobs. Why do the new citizens of the EU from Eastern Europe flock to our shores? Because there's work available - maybe not glamourous well paid work, but there's work. I would take any Polish plumber over the workshy scroungers that make up the British non-working class.

It's not playground bullying, it's the expectation that everybody should do their bit. Why should a large portion of the population get a free ride on the backs of those with the gumption to work? We can't just keep throwing money in benefits and entitlements at those who don't want to work and expect our nation to arise from its slumbers.

Our empire was built on the back of our fighting men and our working men, augmented by scientific genius and bold entrepeneurs and explorers willing to risk everything. Our current excuse for a country is blighted by those who think they're entitled to everything but will risk nothing to get it, except possibly a derisory suspended sentence for attempting to steal from someone who has made their own way. Why should I have my earnings stripped from me and my family to pay someone who won't get off their arse and contribute?

 

[osymandus]

Why did the banks fail? Not because of unfettered capitalism, but because the Clinton government incentivised sub-prime lending. If the credit market had been left to function on strict principles of supply and demand, where loan applications were approved or disapproved based on the applicant's ability to pay rather than their particular hard luck story, then we wouldn't have had a banking crisis.

As to your dismissal of trickle down economic theory, your assessment seems to be based on two flawed assumptions:

1. The rich hoard all their money.

2. If you're not born rich, you can't become rich.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, social workers and diversity counsellors (and full-time trade unionists) are not going to provide employment opportunities for their fellow citizens. People who own large companies, whether they be in financial services, building, retail or entertainment do. You only 'suffer' if you think you're too good to take up a lower paid job, offered by one of the 'capitalist pigs', even if you have no relevant experience or qualifications which would be required for a better job. The world needs ditch diggers too.

And there are jobs out there. Maybe not the ones you want - but there are jobs. Why do the new citizens of the EU from Eastern Europe flock to our shores? Because there's work available - maybe not glamourous well paid work, but there's work. I would take any Polish plumber over the workshy scroungers that make up the British non-working class.

It's not playground bullying, it's the expectation that everybody should do their bit. Why should a large portion of the population get a free ride on the backs of those with the gumption to work? We can't just keep throwing money in benefits and entitlements at those who don't want to work and expect our nation to arise from its slumbers.

Our empire was built on the back of our fighting men and our working men, augmented by scientific genius and bold entrepeneurs and explorers willing to risk everything. Our current excuse for a country is blighted by those who think they're entitled to everything but will risk nothing to get it, except possibly a derisory suspended sentence for attempting to steal from someone who has made their own way. Why should I have my earnings stripped from me and my family to pay someone who won't get off their arse and contribute?

No it dosnt none of us assume that , and your idea that it wasnt the banks themselfs that went after every opportunity is lauaghable . We know teh Clinton administration reducded the regulations . However no one it the goverment held a gun to either the morgate lender or buyers heads to dictate the terms of sale now did they .

Your right on the jobs being there . But the reason the EU migrants get them is they know they can be paid well below what they are worth because they come from a climate of generally work or death. Now that's just ****ing stupid . Its not noble its not brilliant that you have to live in fear of your life unless someone gives an opportunity .
Its a variation of feudalism with the barons holding all teh sway and no one else getting it unless they fit a set criteria . I.e the system is more important then the individual . Which makes no sense as with out individuals there is no system. And why does everyone believe they are capable of getting the pot of gold or the best thing in life is because we're bombared from the cradle to the grave that that the best you can do in life , nothing else matters

And if Bankers/finical trained were the only people, most would be dead if every one else had gone because their not trained or capable of picking up every other task in society any more then social workers or nurses can pick up being engineers or rocket scientists.


Regarding genuis and how they move on society may i point you towards Nikolia Tssla and his relationship with JP Morgan and Thomas Eddison , because with out Tesla we wouldn't even be typing this , the other two could have been replaced by a thousand other people .

 

[Mad Cyril]

Why did the banks fail? Not because of unfettered capitalism, but because the Clinton government incentivised sub-prime lending. If the credit market had been left to function on strict principles of supply and demand, where loan applications were approved or disapproved based on the applicant's ability to pay rather than their particular hard luck story, then we wouldn't have had a banking crisis.

It wasn't Clinton idea to package mortgages into various financial instruments such as CDOs and sell it on for profit.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

They come from a climate of work or death? You mean they come from formerly socialist countries? Interesting.....

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

It wasn't Clinton idea to package mortgages into various financial instruments such as CDOs and sell it on for profit.

But do you not agree that the banking meltdown was not the result of pure unfettered capitalism, and if not, why not?

 

[Mad Cyril]

But do you not agree that the banking meltdown was not the result of pure unfettered capitalism, and if not, why not?

Banks didn't fail because they lent all their money to poor people.

They failed because they did not understand the risk associated with the mortgage backed securities they and other banks held.

 

[osymandus]

They come from a climate of work or death? You mean they come from formerly socialist countries? Interesting.....

Its still work or death , much like people from Rowanda , the Congo , Uganda... 1930's America . The ideology that means you abandon your life to either it or your are told the outcome is your destruction has no value .

Freedom is Liberty , people who believe in Liberty are Liberals

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The US and its allies invaded Iraq to make an example of a Muslim state in the wake of 9/11 - they needed to be seen to be doing something tangible after being attacked by murderous Islamist pigs.


I thought this was the reason why Afghanistan was invaded?

<Was there any economic self-interest factored in? Of course. But God forbid that a country should act in its own best interests, depose a murderous dictator and introduce democracy to a country that had only known fear and repression in its recent history. QUOTE]<

What sort of democracy in Iraq are we talking about here exactly?

What about the illegal nature of the invasion? At least citizens in Spain were offered the chance to vote for a party which opposed the war.
Like millions of others throughout the world I marched in the streets here in Barcelona against Spain's involvment.
This just gets more and more amusing.:D

 

[osymandus]

Just to pop back to the point on the Psychiatric care for ex service men .
Rather by coincidence it was a topic in the all party Defence debate.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100413/tuk-war-veterans-mental-health-warning-6323e80.html

Seems they all though it was a bigger issue, then some may think.

 

[Lord Football]

Why did the banks fail? Not because of unfettered capitalism, but because the Clinton government incentivised sub-prime lending. If the credit market had been left to function on strict principles of supply and demand, where loan applications were approved or disapproved based on the applicant's ability to pay rather than their particular hard luck story, then we wouldn't have had a banking crisis.

As to your dismissal of trickle down economic theory, your assessment seems to be based on two flawed assumptions:

1. The rich hoard all their money.

2. If you're not born rich, you can't become rich.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, social workers and diversity counsellors (and full-time trade unionists) are not going to provide employment opportunities for their fellow citizens. People who own large companies, whether they be in financial services, building, retail or entertainment do. You only 'suffer' if you think you're too good to take up a lower paid job, offered by one of the 'capitalist pigs', even if you have no relevant experience or qualifications which would be required for a better job. The world needs ditch diggers too.

And there are jobs out there. Maybe not the ones you want - but there are jobs. Why do the new citizens of the EU from Eastern Europe flock to our shores? Because there's work available - maybe not glamourous well paid work, but there's work. I would take any Polish plumber over the workshy scroungers that make up the British non-working class.

It's not playground bullying, it's the expectation that everybody should do their bit. Why should a large portion of the population get a free ride on the backs of those with the gumption to work? We can't just keep throwing money in benefits and entitlements at those who don't want to work and expect our nation to arise from its slumbers.

Our empire was built on the back of our fighting men and our working men, augmented by scientific genius and bold entrepeneurs and explorers willing to risk everything. Our current excuse for a country is blighted by those who think they're entitled to everything but will risk nothing to get it, except possibly a derisory suspended sentence for attempting to steal from someone who has made their own way. Why should I have my earnings stripped from me and my family to pay someone who won't get off their arse and contribute?

The banks failed because they weren't regulated and were a law unto themselves. When they went belly up, Governments had to step in because the capitalist system utterly depends on them.

I don't believe I've ever said that about the rich. I might have done if I hadn't heard of people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson. I do so wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth to supplement your poor arguments.

No, you suffer when you don't have a job and there aren't any. You aren't old enough to recall the horrors of the early 80s when essentially the Thatcher government closed their eyes to plight of over 3 million people.

Yes, there is work available. You can work on the building site in Stratford, not much use if you live in Liverpool. Not much use if you don't know diddly squat about building. Not much use if you are female. Not much use... well you get my drift.

"Playground bullying"... you've said all that needs to be said. You talk about a large percentage of the population and suggest they get a free ride. Ever tried living on benefits? Do you really think its an unending flow of cash that allows you to buy anything more than essentials? You talk about those who don't want to work... DONT WANT TO WORK. Thats the Tory mantra. Its the assumption that the unemployed don't want to work. Get out and visit a DWP office full of desperate people pleading for employment. Those that don't want to work are a small minority, who deserve nothing but they are completely different to the majority who want to but are denied the opportunity.

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that people don't want to work. And therefore your entire argument is flawed.