• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Ungrateful bastards"

Collapse

  • HairyArsedBloke
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    Greenspan would not have backed the tax cuts for the rich, or cut interest rates to 1%, encouraging banks to borrow more, magnifying the credit crunch?

    Lend

    The sub-prime problem in the US can be traced back to the Clinton era with their policy of being more 'inclusive' in access to loans.

    In the UK it was the snot goblin using the percieved wealth effect to buy votes from a country obsessed with speculating on property.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreenerGrass
    replied
    Originally posted by minestrone View Post
    I think they really screwed up in the last 2 days though.

    Kinnock screaming "alright, alright" like a deranged booze hound the night before did not go down well with the middle classes and the Sun headline on the morning really screwed them with the working classes, it could have been very different otherwise.

    Jesus, if Brown actually gets elected and the electorate actually give him a mandate he will set the year back to 0 and have us all working on the land.

    Time to leave for me.
    The importance of The Sun this time around cannot be underestimated either.

    The Conservatives will need a large lead in the polls to overcome the bias in electoral boundaries:
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/electoral-bias

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberman
    replied
    Interesting.. I just typed in F e c k l e s s and the site changed the word to F l i p l e s s. Anybody know why ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyberman
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Until recent polls I was going for a FEb 09 election : now looks like May 10.

    Personally I am not convinced that DC will do any better than GB. The UK needs some very very unpleasant medicine : neither have the guts to dispense it.

    Does it take guts to spend less and to stop throwing billions at the banks ? There is a big difference between the Tories and Labour on public spending. Reductions in spending are the main priority. The Tories will do it, but Labour have shown that they just borrow more and more to try to win short-term votes from the naive or feckless.

    Leave a comment:


  • PM-Junkie
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    You can't really argue with the second election. The first was stolen, but the second was won as fairly as any other election in the US has been. Bush won the popular vote and the electoral college vote in the second election.
    You can't be serious.

    The electronic voting scandal? The debacle in Florida? The vote rigging in Ohio? This list goes on and on.

    If you seriously think that US presidential elections, from the primaries through to the final election, are anything other than utterly corrupt - then you seriously need to stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by adestor View Post
    Ha ! Looking forward to the next election when Gordon and his incompetent numpties get kicked out.
    Until recent polls I was going for a FEb 09 election : now looks like May 10.

    Personally I am not convinced that DC will do any better than GB. The UK needs some very very unpleasant medicine : neither have the guts to dispense it.

    Leave a comment:


  • dinker
    replied
    Originally posted by Sysman View Post
    I think it was a disastrous Labour Party rally in Sheffield that reversed Kinnock's lead - that was the official left wing excuse anyway. The turning point in my local pub was when Pillock said that anyone on 20K p.a. was rich and were to be targeted for higher taxes.
    Obviously you are a very selfish person, you should be happy to hand over "your" earnings to the Labour Party.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    Some would have been done differently, for better or for worse.

    But about al-quaeda and the taliban, the democrats had ignored the problem during the previous eight years and just let it develop. Furthermore, much of his Inconvenient Truth video seems to have been inconveniently untrue.
    I don't believe that a Gore presidency would have taken the US (and consequently us) into a war in Iraq.

    I don't believe that a Gore presidency would have blown the surplus on tax cuts for the rich.

    I don't believe (although not as strongly) that a Gore presidency would have gone for less regulation in the financial markets.

    I don't believe that a move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy is a bad thing.

    I don't believe that the world would be any worse off under Gore than under Dubya, in fact I believe that the world would have been significantly better off under Gore than Bush.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    The US wouldn't have wasted $800+ bn on an illegal war? We wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq? US might have funded the FBI in their search for Al-Quaeda before 9/11? The president might have actually read the PDB entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"? Greenspan would not have backed the tax cuts for the rich, or cut interest rates to 1%, encouraging banks to borrow more, magnifying the credit crunch?
    Some would have been done differently, for better or for worse.

    But about al-quaeda and the taliban, the democrats had ignored the problem during the previous eight years and just let it develop. Furthermore, much of his Inconvenient Truth video seems to have been inconveniently untrue.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    But imagine Al Gore as president...
    The US wouldn't have wasted $800+ bn on an illegal war? We wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq? US might have funded the FBI in their search for Al-Quaeda before 9/11? The president might have actually read the PDB entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"? Greenspan would not have backed the tax cuts for the rich, or cut interest rates to 1%, encouraging banks to borrow more, magnifying the credit crunch?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    You can't really argue with the second election. The first was stolen, but the second was won as fairly as any other election in the US has been. Bush won the popular vote and the electoral college vote in the second election.
    But imagine Al Gore as president...

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by PM-Junkie View Post
    ....that has more to do with the fact that the US voting system is one of the most corrupt on the planet than who people think they voted for.

    At least here, regardless of who wins we can be safe in the knowledge that they did actually win (according to our system, which I don't actually agree with).
    You can't really argue with the second election. The first was stolen, but the second was won as fairly as any other election in the US has been. Bush won the popular vote and the electoral college vote in the second election.

    Leave a comment:


  • tonyblair
    replied
    Originally posted by adestor View Post
    Ha ! Looking forward to the next election when Gordon and his incompetent numpties get kicked out.
    Now perhaps you realise why I hung on as long as I did.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrowneIssue
    replied
    Originally posted by David Cameron View Post
    Excellent, finally the mindless masses are recognising my genius.
    Sorry, who are you again?

    Leave a comment:


  • PM-Junkie
    replied
    Originally posted by HeliCraig View Post
    Bush won two elections - so anything can happen! (Note I did not say that the American's voted him in - there is probably a disconnect there!).
    ....that has more to do with the fact that the US voting system is one of the most corrupt on the planet than who people think they voted for.

    At least here, regardless of who wins we can be safe in the knowledge that they did actually win (according to our system, which I don't actually agree with).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X