Cash for honours - the 1st arrest

[Rantor]

Never thought I'd see it but..

That would be stuff rushing way way way over your head.
I will say it simply and slowly for you.
I loathe, hate, abhor, hold in contempt socialists and their ilk because the people who they claim to be helping are the people who they are keeping under control, in order that they can stay in power by pretending to help them.
I pointed out the fact that I was doing OK (FFS this is a contractors' site, nobody on here should be having problems) not to boast but to demonstrate that NL don't really make that much of an impact on my life (I'm aware of your viewpoint often implied as well as occasionally expressed that all we ever do on this board is moan about high taxes, and of course you just see it as the well-off bitching about paying taxes) and that my hatred for them is idealogical, and frankly I have no idea why the left-wing don't loathe them equally because they're not even socialist, they're opportunist vermin.
As to my categorising a whole class of people as vermin, I believe I'm perfectly entitlled to view the parasitic scumbags in Parliament as vermin, and a number of the underclass have no function within society other than to cost it money. You left wingers are always happy to accept that there is such a thing as society when it comes to handing out somebody else's money, but society isn't allowed to protect itself because it breaches the human rights of someone who cares less than nothing for anybody else within that society.
I choose not to pick up the Scotland argument.
Compassion for your fellow man, priceless, yes throw the poor a few scraps to keep them in fags and beer, but don't educate them to better themselves after all they're not capable you know, they're just a burden we nobly bear.
Left-wing fascistic control-freakery, and you even get to feel good about yourself. Tossers, the lot of them.

...it appears DG that you have proven one of Jerry Sadowitz's most profound theorems to be irrefutably true. Thanks

[Dundeegeorge]

Always glad to be of assistance, Rantor

...it appears DG that you have proven one of Jerry Sadowitz's most profound theorems to be irrefutably true. Thanks

but I'm not Canadian.

Hint. You'll have to be more specific.

[xoggoth]

Hey! Snaw's back! Very entertaining as it is to see such friction between my favourite Scottish CUK sorts but are you two even arguing about the same thing?

If socialism were really about helping the genuinely needy AND deserving I geuss even most of us right wings sorts would not disagree with it too much. Forget meritocracy and all that Ayne Rand crap, we want an effortocracy. If those of lesser ability got a decent share of the wealth of society for making a reasonable effort commensurate with what ability they had you would get no complaints from me.

Unfortunately, we appear to have a system that has lost interest in mechanisms for judging merit because it is administered by a hypocritical elite who manipulate society so that they themselves suffer none of the egalitarian sacrifices they impose on others and dispenses the wealth of the powerless able in a largely indiscriminate fashion which destroys incentive for anyone, no matter how modestly, to try and better themselves.

Not attacking what you believe in as I see it Snaw, but the reality of the society we really have, and on that DG has the situation bang to rights.

[stackpole]

It's the appalling, inefficient, incompetent waste I object to.

Why does each new generation of socialists think they can succeed where all before them have failed?

[NickIT]

DG said - frankly I have no idea why the left-wing don't loathe them equally because they're not even socialist, they're opportunist vermin.

They do. The old style Labourites dispise Smiler with a passion. No. Not dispise. Outright hate him and New Labour.

Regarding the rest of this situation all one can say is that our pols no longer represent us.

How many ellection promises have been broken, ignored or changed beyond recognition?

[BobTheCrate]

DG

Your complete lack of respect for most/all politicians is shared by an increasing number of the electorate (judging from recent turnouts) and the way you express this is certainly amongst the most colourful.

Believe it or not there are in my opinion, quite a few genuine MPs out there. Some whose politicsI generally share, others I'm diagramatically opposed to; but know what they stand for they believe in. Tony Benn was a prime example. I respect him (rightfully or wrongfully) because IMO he believes in what he says even though I rarely agree with him.

And then of course there are the more disingenuous MPs who like you say will do and say anything just to get elected. They want power for power's sake and have little or no ambition to change things for the betterment of the people. As we don't usually know them personally we can only use our judgement over a long'ish period of time.

We haven't seen Cameron for long enough. At the moment and for some time to come he's having to perform an almighty juggling act. I suggest your judgement of him would be better timed after at least witnessing 18 months of him. Our most accurate judgement would have to be reserved after he's been in power for 18 months - to see what he's made of there if he gets there.

Myself, I don't think it is helpful for you personally, to paint all politicians in the colours you have. It just aint that simple, no matter how frustrating it becomes.

Imagine yourself as an MP with a real passion to do things that you feel desperately need doing. Now compare that to getting elected, with all the compromises probably extracted from you. And then if fortunate enough to get elected, imagine all the unforseen obstacles that either prevent you enacting all you want, or other policies that get in the way. Colleagues in your cabinet who disagree with your proposals, the civil service presenting you with new difficulties you had not originally forseen. Opposing backbenchers in your own party who do not appreciate the juggling act you're having to perform. The list is probably quite daunting.

Invariably you'll end up with unintended degrees of contradictory policy which the media will highlight and the electorate scratch their heads over saying to themselves and others, "but he promised - typical politician".

And of course what the electorate say they want or wanted is nearly always littered with contradiction as well.

Choosing the best Gov't in a democracy (as someone famous once said, can't remember who) is about choosing the lesser of the evils.

Hope this helps a tad.

If not ... 'up the revolution'.

[mcquiggd]

Also apply the same logic to cherie. Get her on the old ducking stool for an hour of two.

She will undoubtedly survive, so get the stake and matches ready.

[Dundeegeorge]

Mr Bob

DG

Your complete lack of respect for most/all politicians is shared by an increasing number of the electorate (judging from recent turnouts) and the way you express this is certainly amongst the most colourful.

Believe it or not there are in my opinion, quite a few genuine MPs out there. Some whose politicsI generally share, others I'm diagramatically opposed to; but know what they stand for they believe in. Tony Benn was a prime example. I respect him (rightfully or wrongfully) because IMO he believes in what he says even though I rarely agree with him.

And then of course there are the more disingenuous MPs who like you say will do and say anything just to get elected. They want power for power's sake and have little or no ambition to change things for the betterment of the people. As we don't usually know them personally we can only use our judgement over a long'ish period of time.

We haven't seen Cameron for long enough. At the moment and for some time to come he's having to perform an almighty juggling act. I suggest your judgement of him would be better timed after at least witnessing 18 months of him. Our most accurate judgement would have to be reserved after he's been in power for 18 months - to see what he's made of there if he gets there.

Myself, I don't think it is helpful for you personally, to paint all politicians in the colours you have. It just aint that simple, no matter how frustrating it becomes.

Imagine yourself as an MP with a real passion to do things that you feel desperately need doing. Now compare that to getting elected, with all the compromises probably extracted from you. And then if fortunate enough to get elected, imagine all the unforseen obstacles that either prevent you enacting all you want, or other policies that get in the way. Colleagues in your cabinet who disagree with your proposals, the civil service presenting you with new difficulties you had not originally forseen. Opposing backbenchers in your own party who do not appreciate the juggling act you're having to perform. The list is probably quite daunting.

Invariably you'll end up with unintended degrees of contradictory policy which the media will highlight and the electorate scratch their heads over saying to themselves and others, "but he promised - typical politician".

And of course what the electorate say they want or wanted is nearly always littered with contradiction as well.

Choosing the best Gov't in a democracy (as someone famous once said, can't remember who) is about choosing the lesser of the evils.

Hope this helps a tad.

If not ... 'up the revolution'.

I actually share your respect for Tony Benn, and I know that there are politicians who do want to change the world for the better, but they are not high in parties and they will never be.
Perhaps I should phrase it then as all 'party' politicians are opportunist vermin, but then of course the only MPs who can effect change are, oh let me think, oh that's right, 'party' politicians. Therefore the polticiians who matter are opportunist vermin.
We haven't seen Cameron for liong enough, well now. Cameron was voted leader after making deals that the tory MEPs would leave the EPP before the end of July 2006. Promise, no equivocation, no qualification, a promise and on that basis a number of votes went his way leading to his election as leader of the conservative party.
You may or may not be aware that there are currently a number of conservative party members who are even now resigning from the party (see UKIPForum or Conservatives own forum) because this is not going to happen and now Hague is threatening people with expulision from the party if they push on this matter.
I've already seen enough of Cameron, thank you very much.
I take your point that the task of running any country is very difficult, and that's why talented people should be doing it, not opportunist vermin. Was there not a report released recently that stated government misnisters were lazy and incompetent? I noticed that corrupt wasn't mentioned, but it seems that it didn't take Princess Toni's squad of whiter-than-whites too long to get their snouts in the trough.
Tell me again why we should trust our polticians.

[snaw]

That would be stuff rushing way way way over your head.
I will say it simply and slowly for you.
I loathe, hate, abhor, hold in contempt socialists and their ilk because the people who they claim to be helping are the people who they are keeping under control, in order that they can stay in power by pretending to help them.
I pointed out the fact that I was doing OK (FFS this is a contractors' site, nobody on here should be having problems) not to boast but to demonstrate that NL don't really make that much of an impact on my life (I'm aware of your viewpoint often implied as well as occasionally expressed that all we ever do on this board is moan about high taxes, and of course you just see it as the well-off bitching about paying taxes) and that my hatred for them is idealogical, and frankly I have no idea why the left-wing don't loathe them equally because they're not even socialist, they're opportunist vermin.
As to my categorising a whole class of people as vermin, I believe I'm perfectly entitlled to view the parasitic scumbags in Parliament as vermin, and a number of the underclass have no function within society other than to cost it money. You left wingers are always happy to accept that there is such a thing as society when it comes to handing out somebody else's money, but society isn't allowed to protect itself because it breaches the human rights of someone who cares less than nothing for anybody else within that society.
I choose not to pick up the Scotland argument.
Compassion for your fellow man, priceless, yes throw the poor a few scraps to keep them in fags and beer, but don't educate them to better themselves after all they're not capable you know, they're just a burden we nobly bear.
Left-wing fascistic control-freakery, and you even get to feel good about yourself. Tossers, the lot of them.

I love this line of thinking, it's always expounded by people who don't actually give a sh!te about the less fortunate in society in a patronising 'we know what's best for you' manner. You're answer appears to be feck em and let the vermin starve to paraphrase, and somehow you leap to the conclusion that I don't want to educate the poor and don't believe they're capable - um, I'd say that's actually more likely to be a viewpoint apparent on your side of the fence.

Given I come from that background you're happy to disparage I'm pretty happy to argue that for me education is the key difference - underfunded schools, sh!t teachers, bad facilities etc etc make it much less likely that someone from the underclass get's the opportunity to get on - and I don't recall that being better under the tory governments of old ... (Which isn't an argument for NL btw)

No idea what your on about with society protecting itself cause my politics are left wing, I don't subscribe to protecting those that wish us harm any more than anyone else who lives here so don't make the mistake of stereotyping based on one particular set of beliefs.

Xog - I'm not arguing for the status quo and many times have stated on this board that I believe the current system is very flawed, and I see that first hand when I go home and half the people I grew up with are 'benefit experts'. That doesn't make them vermin, just people getting by within a system the best way they can in an environment where opportunities are limited. Most of them would be happy to get jobs if they could cause counter to the red top sensationalist headlines it's not exactly a pleasant life they're leading.

Vista - it's called debate, f@ckwit. I know you don't like to challenge your long held beliefs but if you want any sort of credit for voicing them at least try to engage beyond four letter insults. Or does stringing a couple of sentences together tax the brain cell too much?

[Dundeegeorge]

So some points of agreement then

We agree that education is the key.
We agree that opportunity is better than handouts.
Your background is irrelevant, plenty of other people including me, come from working-class backgrounds but it's your aspirations that matter (it's not where you start, it's where you finish).
And I take exception to your claim that poor people are the underclass, that's a (I hope accidental) misinterpretation of my use of the word underclass. You know very well that there are poor and uneducated people and then there are people whose aim in life is to skive through it stealing what isn't nailed down and taking no responsibility for their actions, they are two entirely different sets of people even if there is some overlap, but there are plenty of vermin who are born into privilege. I have never claimed that poverty is a crime, it's usually a misfortune.
The 'we know what's best for them' attitude. That is the opposite of my belief. That's the kind of thing left-wingers are always claiming. I don't claim that, I have no idea what's best for people, and I have no intention of telling people how to live their lives. It's their lives and they should be responsible (and should be allowed to be responsible) for them, not the government, not some polticial theorist, not some self-loathing angst-ridden liberal tosser.
My apologies if my stereotypical view of left-wing liberal tree-hugging 'it's not his fault' apologism for just about any crime under the sun doesn't apply to you. But there is a reason for the existence of stereotypes and it is a stereotypical view of the left-wing.