FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT
LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)? I know our personal perception of whether something is left or right wing depends on where our personal overton window is positioned, but are thee general characteristics? Also using such a catch all term seems rather restrictive and also all encompassing. Is someone with generally left views a leftie really or is it only those more to the left? Same fir centre-right vs right? For the purposes of this lets agree that far left is Communism (being distinct from Socislism) and far right is Fascism." I don't know if Fab is very representative. But we seem largely to be split between. Brexit 
Boris Johnson
Trump
Farage
IDF
Tories
Climate science - no
Vs
Ceasefire in Gaza
Climate science
Politics that spends money on public services
Trans community
NHS
Tories - no
Farage - hells no
Trump - no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. " This is such a strange definition of "left" for me. Never heard of anyone who hates shareholders or who doesn't want businesses to make money, or doesn't want people to have nice things. Does this person really exist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. This is such a strange definition of "left" for me. Never heard of anyone who hates shareholders or who doesn't want businesses to make money, or doesn't want people to have nice things. Does this person really exist?" Absolutely they do. I said the same thing above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. This is such a strange definition of "left" for me. Never heard of anyone who hates shareholders or who doesn't want businesses to make money, or doesn't want people to have nice things. Does this person really exist?" They don't exist in your alternate reality, probably the only place tbf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that someone who agrees with the last person that they were talking to are Centrist (fence sitters - usually named Kier or Starmer) Far left want everything for free and think that the world owes them a living and that all business people are ****. Far right think that they own the world and call it after their own race only. Those who flop between really don't know what they want, how to get it, and what to do if they got it. "So much poop there, someone has diarrhoea 
Far left everything free? Far left Communism, ie work for the good of the collective. What's free about that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)? I know our personal perception of whether something is left or right wing depends on where our personal overton window is positioned, but are thee general characteristics? Also using such a catch all term seems rather restrictive and also all encompassing. Is someone with generally left views a leftie really or is it only those more to the left? Same fir centre-right vs right? For the purposes of this lets agree that far left is Communism (being distinct from Socislism) and far right is Fascism. I don't know if Fab is very representative. But we seem largely to be split between. Brexit
Boris Johnson
Trump
Farage
IDF
Tories
Climate science - no
Vs
Ceasefire in Gaza
Climate science
Politics that spends money on public services
Trans community
NHS
Tories - no
Farage - hells no
Trump - no"Do your thumbs ache? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)? I know our personal perception of whether something is left or right wing depends on where our personal overton window is positioned, but are thee general characteristics? Also using such a catch all term seems rather restrictive and also all encompassing. Is someone with generally left views a leftie really or is it only those more to the left? Same fir centre-right vs right? For the purposes of this lets agree that far left is Communism (being distinct from Socislism) and far right is Fascism." Like someone thinking lefties are charitable but not (head spin)... charity is not a political leaning. That other thread was duh! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that someone who agrees with the last person that they were talking to are Centrist (fence sitters - usually named Kier or Starmer) Far left want everything for free and think that the world owes them a living and that all business people are ****. Far right think that they own the world and call it after their own race only. Those who flop between really don't know what they want, how to get it, and what to do if they got it.
So much poop there, someone has diarrhoea
Far left everything free? Far left Communism, ie work for the good of the collective. What's free about that?"There is actually no such thing as communism outside of a book. All so-called communists regimes are dictatorships | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find that someone who agrees with the last person that they were talking to are Centrist (fence sitters - usually named Kier or Starmer) Far left want everything for free and think that the world owes them a living and that all business people are ****. Far right think that they own the world and call it after their own race only. Those who flop between really don't know what they want, how to get it, and what to do if they got it.
So much poop there, someone has diarrhoea
Far left everything free? Far left Communism, ie work for the good of the collective. What's free about that?
There is actually no such thing as communism outside of a book.
All so-called communists regimes are dictatorships"So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves. "'Progressive'  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
'Progressive' "And for free.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. " None of those 'attributes' of a lefty apply to myself plus I've held shares though now cashed in the portfolio, business has to make money of course but they also in my opinion should have decent terms and conditions (the German model of good working relationships between bosses and unionised workers is one good example which despite the recent downturn served their economy well).. I don't want government all over my life either nor being told what to do with my money and I'm in favour of law and order which I think applies for the majority regardless.. Plus I think decent public services and not having foreign government or companies profiting from our essential infrastructure are something we should have.. I know it's not an exhaustive list you've quoted but i think it's too clichéd.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"again . . . There is actually no such thing as communism outside of a book. All so-called communists regimes are dictatorships Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship?" Agreed.. History shows us how they are anything but equal societies.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. This is such a strange definition of "left" for me. Never heard of anyone who hates shareholders or who doesn't want businesses to make money, or doesn't want people to have nice things. Does this person really exist? Absolutely they do. I said the same thing above. " Never seen or heard of anyone expressing these views in my life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"again . . . There is actually no such thing as communism outside of a book. All so-called communists regimes are dictatorships Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship?" Is there an echo in here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here?" Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship?" I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). " Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It comes down to the maxim popularised by Karl Marx : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This will resonate to those on the left, but be anathema to those on the right who believe in capitalism. At it's purest, socialism has been an abject failure wherever it's been tried, but capitalism has an 'unacceptable face' too. It's not a binary principle, but lefties will tend towards higher social benefits and state involvement in their lives. The right think people should take responsibility for themselves, and keep the state at arms length." my little Marxist knowledge understand that this approach is to be used once physicak labour is gone and we work because we want to. I don't fully understand it, but I don't believe it's something that can be applied today and still be called Marx. No questions please... This is me relaying someone else's view when we were discussing all good ideas become corrupt the future you move away from the people who truly study it. See also: religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It comes down to the maxim popularised by Karl Marx : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This will resonate to those on the left, but be anathema to those on the right who believe in capitalism. At it's purest, socialism has been an abject failure wherever it's been tried, but capitalism has an 'unacceptable face' too. It's not a binary principle, but lefties will tend towards higher social benefits and state involvement in their lives. The right think people should take responsibility for themselves, and keep the state at arms length." Oh dear - I agree with you - that has to be a progressive socialism shackled in comradeship of some kind. Time for wine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. " Similar to what I have been told apart from hating share holders and big business, more wanting to redistribute what they earned to others. Summed up as left go for big government and state choice, right go for small government and individuals choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It comes down to the maxim popularised by Karl Marx : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This will resonate to those on the left, but be anathema to those on the right who believe in capitalism. At it's purest, socialism has been an abject failure wherever it's been tried, but capitalism has an 'unacceptable face' too. It's not a binary principle, but lefties will tend towards higher social benefits and state involvement in their lives. The right think people should take responsibility for themselves, and keep the state at arms length. Oh dear - I agree with you - that has to be a progressive socialism shackled in comradeship of some kind. Time for wine. " hasta la victoria siempre comrade!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It comes down to the maxim popularised by Karl Marx : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This will resonate to those on the left, but be anathema to those on the right who believe in capitalism. At it's purest, socialism has been an abject failure wherever it's been tried, but capitalism has an 'unacceptable face' too. It's not a binary principle, but lefties will tend towards higher social benefits and state involvement in their lives. The right think people should take responsibility for themselves, and keep the state at arms length. Oh dear - I agree with you - that has to be a progressive socialism shackled in comradeship of some kind. Time for wine. hasta la victoria siempre comrade!!!!" I doff my ushanka to you Comrade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. None of those 'attributes' of a lefty apply to myself plus I've held shares though now cashed in the portfolio, business has to make money of course but they also in my opinion should have decent terms and conditions (the German model of good working relationships between bosses and unionised workers is one good example which despite the recent downturn served their economy well).. I don't want government all over my life either nor being told what to do with my money and I'm in favour of law and order which I think applies for the majority regardless.. Plus I think decent public services and not having foreign government or companies profiting from our essential infrastructure are something we should have.. I know it's not an exhaustive list you've quoted but i think it's too clichéd.." I think you might want to be a leftist but deep down you are a conservative. I knew there was something different about you   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. " I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? " And avoid avoid. As usual. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? And avoid avoid. As usual." It's been a day for that around here today, I think it's the thought of Labour winning Friday has made them all dizzy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? And avoid avoid. As usual. It's been a day for that around here today, I think it's the thought of Labour winning Friday has made them all dizzy "I know. Right!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? And avoid avoid. As usual. It's been a day for that around here today, I think it's the thought of Labour winning Friday has made them all dizzy " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. None of those 'attributes' of a lefty apply to myself plus I've held shares though now cashed in the portfolio, business has to make money of course but they also in my opinion should have decent terms and conditions (the German model of good working relationships between bosses and unionised workers is one good example which despite the recent downturn served their economy well).. I don't want government all over my life either nor being told what to do with my money and I'm in favour of law and order which I think applies for the majority regardless.. Plus I think decent public services and not having foreign government or companies profiting from our essential infrastructure are something we should have.. I know it's not an exhaustive list you've quoted but i think it's too clichéd.. I think you might want to be a leftist but deep down you are a conservative. I knew there was something different about you "The wife's been saying the latter for forty years.. I just nearly cho#ed on my Quinoa and free range broccoli bake..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? And avoid avoid. As usual." Obviously not. Go look it up. If I was arguing against your point THEN your question would be natural, but I'm not. However, you want an answer that has no relevance to my point, I'm just be gracious - but you'll moan cos he's dead: Lenin. Put that in your pipe! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? And avoid avoid. As usual. Obviously not. Go look it up. If I was arguing against your point THEN your question would be natural, but I'm not. However, you want an answer that has no relevance to my point, I'm just be gracious - but you'll moan cos he's dead: Lenin. Put that in your pipe!" I didn't say you were arguing against my point - show me if I did - but you can't co's I didn't - but I did ask you a question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. None of those 'attributes' of a lefty apply to myself plus I've held shares though now cashed in the portfolio, business has to make money of course but they also in my opinion should have decent terms and conditions (the German model of good working relationships between bosses and unionised workers is one good example which despite the recent downturn served their economy well).. I don't want government all over my life either nor being told what to do with my money and I'm in favour of law and order which I think applies for the majority regardless.. Plus I think decent public services and not having foreign government or companies profiting from our essential infrastructure are something we should have.. I know it's not an exhaustive list you've quoted but i think it's too clichéd.. I think you might want to be a leftist but deep down you are a conservative. I knew there was something different about you
The wife's been saying the latter for forty years..
I just nearly cho#ed on my Quinoa and free range broccoli bake.. "Take a few sips of your Chateau Lafite Rothschild Pauillac and you will be fine. And now you are out, remember their is no shame in liking nice things all to yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? And avoid avoid. As usual. Obviously not. Go look it up. If I was arguing against your point THEN your question would be natural, but I'm not. However, you want an answer that has no relevance to my point, I'm just be gracious - but you'll moan cos he's dead: Lenin. Put that in your pipe! I didn't say you were arguing against my point - show me if I did - but you can't co's I didn't - but I did ask you a question. "Oh I see, and you don't like your questions ignored, well I know how to get on ya tits then . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? And avoid avoid. As usual. Obviously not. Go look it up. If I was arguing against your point THEN your question would be natural, but I'm not. However, you want an answer that has no relevance to my point, I'm just be gracious - but you'll moan cos he's dead: Lenin. Put that in your pipe! I didn't say you were arguing against my point - show me if I did - but you can't co's I didn't - but I did ask you a question.
Oh I see, and you don't like your questions ignored, well I know how to get on ya tits then ."What a silly and childish response. 
Perhaps you missed the notion of Politics and forum and discussion?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. None of those 'attributes' of a lefty apply to myself plus I've held shares though now cashed in the portfolio, business has to make money of course but they also in my opinion should have decent terms and conditions (the German model of good working relationships between bosses and unionised workers is one good example which despite the recent downturn served their economy well).. I don't want government all over my life either nor being told what to do with my money and I'm in favour of law and order which I think applies for the majority regardless.. Plus I think decent public services and not having foreign government or companies profiting from our essential infrastructure are something we should have.. I know it's not an exhaustive list you've quoted but i think it's too clichéd.. I think you might want to be a leftist but deep down you are a conservative. I knew there was something different about you
The wife's been saying the latter for forty years..
I just nearly cho#ed on my Quinoa and free range broccoli bake..
Take a few sips of your Chateau Lafite Rothschild Pauillac and you will be fine.
And now you are out, remember their is no shame in liking nice things all to yourself "I had to Google that, fuck..
More of a decent rioja or 19 crimes on that front but a good English ale works too..
We don't do posh where I was born..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. None of those 'attributes' of a lefty apply to myself plus I've held shares though now cashed in the portfolio, business has to make money of course but they also in my opinion should have decent terms and conditions (the German model of good working relationships between bosses and unionised workers is one good example which despite the recent downturn served their economy well).. I don't want government all over my life either nor being told what to do with my money and I'm in favour of law and order which I think applies for the majority regardless.. Plus I think decent public services and not having foreign government or companies profiting from our essential infrastructure are something we should have.. I know it's not an exhaustive list you've quoted but i think it's too clichéd.." So for me that feels more centrist than leftie. There is a balance and pragmatism on display. A recognition that maybe you can draw from both sides. Generally I like this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It comes down to the maxim popularised by Karl Marx : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This will resonate to those on the left, but be anathema to those on the right who believe in capitalism. At it's purest, socialism has been an abject failure wherever it's been tried, but capitalism has an 'unacceptable face' too. It's not a binary principle, but lefties will tend towards higher social benefits and state involvement in their lives. The right think people should take responsibility for themselves, and keep the state at arms length." I think this is an excellent definition that also manages to avoid hyperbole and point scoring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It comes down to the maxim popularised by Karl Marx : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This will resonate to those on the left, but be anathema to those on the right who believe in capitalism. At it's purest, socialism has been an abject failure wherever it's been tried, but capitalism has an 'unacceptable face' too. It's not a binary principle, but lefties will tend towards higher social benefits and state involvement in their lives. The right think people should take responsibility for themselves, and keep the state at arms length. I think this is an excellent definition that also manages to avoid hyperbole and point scoring." It has never to proven to work however. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good set of posts from everyone so far. I think if we discount the silly finger pointing then we have a good level of understanding and consistency without needing to resort to pejoratives "Fanks Miss.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It comes down to the maxim popularised by Karl Marx : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This will resonate to those on the left, but be anathema to those on the right who believe in capitalism. At it's purest, socialism has been an abject failure wherever it's been tried, but capitalism has an 'unacceptable face' too. It's not a binary principle, but lefties will tend towards higher social benefits and state involvement in their lives. The right think people should take responsibility for themselves, and keep the state at arms length. I think this is an excellent definition that also manages to avoid hyperbole and point scoring. It has never to proven to work however. " Agreed. That is because it is a utopian dream that fails to take account of the competitive nature of humans as a species. It is anthropologically impossible to achieve for any prolonged period of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good set of posts from everyone so far. I think if we discount the silly finger pointing then we have a good level of understanding and consistency without needing to resort to pejoratives
Fanks Miss. "You get a gold star for contribution and entry in the merit book for your enthusiasm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It comes down to the maxim popularised by Karl Marx : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This will resonate to those on the left, but be anathema to those on the right who believe in capitalism. At it's purest, socialism has been an abject failure wherever it's been tried, but capitalism has an 'unacceptable face' too. It's not a binary principle, but lefties will tend towards higher social benefits and state involvement in their lives. The right think people should take responsibility for themselves, and keep the state at arms length. I think this is an excellent definition that also manages to avoid hyperbole and point scoring. It has never to proven to work however. Agreed. That is because it is a utopian dream that fails to take account of the competitive nature of humans as a species. It is anthropologically impossible to achieve for any prolonged period of time." isn't that the same as true "right" position with no state and 100pc personal responsibility. Isn't that simply nature (to a large degree) and that society has come from moving leftwards ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good set of posts from everyone so far. I think if we discount the silly finger pointing then we have a good level of understanding and consistency without needing to resort to pejoratives
Fanks Miss.
You get a gold star for contribution and entry in the merit book for your enthusiasm "'enthusiasm?' My Mme' used to say: 'You are always the first to volunteer' rapidly followed by: 'What the fuck is wrong with you?' Actually she never swore, her eyes did but her mouth never did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It comes down to the maxim popularised by Karl Marx : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This will resonate to those on the left, but be anathema to those on the right who believe in capitalism. At it's purest, socialism has been an abject failure wherever it's been tried, but capitalism has an 'unacceptable face' too. It's not a binary principle, but lefties will tend towards higher social benefits and state involvement in their lives. The right think people should take responsibility for themselves, and keep the state at arms length. I think this is an excellent definition that also manages to avoid hyperbole and point scoring. It has never to proven to work however. Agreed. That is because it is a utopian dream that fails to take account of the competitive nature of humans as a species. It is anthropologically impossible to achieve for any prolonged period of time.isn't that the same as true "right" position with no state and 100pc personal responsibility. Isn't that simply nature (to a large degree) and that society has come from moving leftwards ? " Also agreed yes. What you describe sounds like anarchy! Humans, like many animals, are herd/pack animals rather than loners. In any animal society there is a hierarchy but they work together for the benefit of the collective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? And avoid avoid. As usual. Obviously not. Go look it up. If I was arguing against your point THEN your question would be natural, but I'm not. However, you want an answer that has no relevance to my point, I'm just be gracious - but you'll moan cos he's dead: Lenin. Put that in your pipe! I didn't say you were arguing against my point - show me if I did - but you can't co's I didn't - but I did ask you a question.
Oh I see, and you don't like your questions ignored, well I know how to get on ya tits then .
What a silly and childish response.
Perhaps you missed the notion of Politics and forum and discussion?
"Throwing your toys out of the pram when someone decides not to answer a question is also childish. Every now and then I like to act like others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there an echo in here? Only while avoiding the question and keeping the question in context. So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? I don't get why you asked the question (or why you repeated your statement). Because I said there is no such thing as communism outside of a book. You answered: So Marx's Communism remains a positive theoretical way of life. I answered: So. Show me one communist regime that ISN'T a Dictatorship? As a proof that no regime can be found. A natural question to your answer. So. If you do know of one, please show us all. I KNOW what you put and what I put! Do you not understand theoretical? And avoid avoid. As usual. Obviously not. Go look it up. If I was arguing against your point THEN your question would be natural, but I'm not. However, you want an answer that has no relevance to my point, I'm just be gracious - but you'll moan cos he's dead: Lenin. Put that in your pipe! I didn't say you were arguing against my point - show me if I did - but you can't co's I didn't - but I did ask you a question.
Oh I see, and you don't like your questions ignored, well I know how to get on ya tits then .
What a silly and childish response.
Perhaps you missed the notion of Politics and forum and discussion?
Throwing your toys out of the pram when someone decides not to answer a question is also childish. Every now and then I like to act like others "Show where that happened? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good set of posts from everyone so far. I think if we discount the silly finger pointing then we have a good level of understanding and consistency without needing to resort to pejoratives "Sorry Sir, I'll be a good girl... Tomorrow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good set of posts from everyone so far. I think if we discount the silly finger pointing then we have a good level of understanding and consistency without needing to resort to pejoratives
Sorry Sir, I'll be a good girl...
Tomorrow. "Good girls go to heaven. Bad girls go to Fab | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)?" In my experience, the two sides are "lefties" and "fascist bastards". It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. They see the right as being evil people that want to destroy them, and the more extreme of them turn to hatred of the right. The right however are less emotional, and see the left as misguided, or ill educated. They see them as fools, and the more extreme turn to contempt for the left. Hatred is a far stronger emotion than contempt, hence the milder phrase of "leftie" being used by the right, and the stronger "fascist bastard" being used by the left. You can see this in phrases like "loony left" and "never kissed a Tory". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)? In my experience, the two sides are "lefties" and "fascist bastards". It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. They see the right as being evil people that want to destroy them, and the more extreme of them turn to hatred of the right. The right however are less emotional, and see the left as misguided, or ill educated. They see them as fools, and the more extreme turn to contempt for the left. Hatred is a far stronger emotion than contempt, hence the milder phrase of "leftie" being used by the right, and the stronger "fascist bastard" being used by the left. You can see this in phrases like "loony left" and "never kissed a Tory"." that's interesting as I see many on the right being led by emotion. I do cringe at some of the language used by people with similar views to me, and the idea of never fucking a Tory etc. I tend to see the right aiming uncomfortable words at other people rather than their political counterparts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)? In my experience, the two sides are "lefties" and "fascist bastards". It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. " Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. " They see the right as being evil people that want to destroy them, and the more extreme of them turn to hatred of the right. The right however are less emotional, and see the left as misguided, or ill educated. They see them as fools, and the more extreme turn to contempt for the left. Hatred is a far stronger emotion than contempt, hence the milder phrase of "leftie" being used by the right, and the stronger "fascist bastard" being used by the left. You can see this in phrases like "loony left" and "never kissed a Tory"." It's much less aggressive towards lefties than it was around the time of the referendum, and in the immediate aftermath. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m right wing. Not centre right but not far right either. I have had all sorts of accusations because I support Reform UK. But I’m not a fascist either. Damnit reds used to call me that name back in the 1980’s because I supported Maggie! I guess the idea is that you throw enough shit at someone, some will eventually stick…" So what characteristics do you have that makes you right wing (or admire in other right wing people)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m right wing. Not centre right but not far right either. I have had all sorts of accusations because I support Reform UK. But I’m not a fascist either. Damnit reds used to call me that name back in the 1980’s because I supported Maggie! I guess the idea is that you throw enough shit at someone, some will eventually stick… So what characteristics do you have that makes you right wing (or admire in other right wing people)?" I’m not actually from Brighton, I’m originally from Manchester, but grew up in Lincolnshire in a small steel town called Scunthorpe. I saw the way the trades unions destroyed the steel industry. I watched their rally through the school windows. ‘What do we want? 20%! When do we want it? Now!’ Twenty fuckin percent! About three years later all but three of the steelworkers in that town were shut for good. Later I left school and came down here to work on building sites owned by my dad. I was living nearby when the IRA blew up the Grand Hotel, I saw them pull Norman Tebbit’s wife out of the rubble. Then I saw the defiance in Maggie’s eyes the next day, what a woman! Later I saw the miners, who were on strike, descend upon Brighton. I couldn’t feel any sympathy for them. Arthur Scargill was leading them towards their own destruction. They lost the battle with Maggie and then saw their industry destroyed. They too might have bought themselves some time if they hadn’t tried to bring down the government. I also saw what the Tories did to Maggie, that was brutal and I didn’t like it. Then we had John Major, who would sign the Maastricht Treaty, and that is when the Tories fell apart. One who walked away and never went back was Nigel Farage. Ever since then he has had my support. I only hope that he can stop the rot, and get this country back in its feet, because it is far from it now. We need conservatism, but not the rubbish offered up by the Tories. We need Reform UK, we need Nigel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m right wing." Really???? Get away What reform are promising is impossible, how can they build more social housing, lower energy prices, cut NHS wait times and reduce taxes??? When the deputy leader was questioned about it and told you don't need to be Carol Vorderman see the figures don't add up. His answer was "Well I'm not an economist" Oh and Farage will stop the boats instantly, whats he going to do? Go do dover and use the force like a jedi? Reform might win 2 or 3 seats if they're lucky. Farage will likely win at clacton, will not do his job and keep the promises to his constituents and probably step down after a few months so he can go back to shouting from the sidelines again. He's not the messiah he just a very naughty boy. I wouldn't call myself a socialist I'm more of an anarchist. I would quite like the entire banking system collapse and live in a dystopian world were water would be currency or maybe fuel or cigarettes? I would change my name to Deacon or Preacher as they seem to be in charge | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m right wing. Not centre right but not far right either. I have had all sorts of accusations because I support Reform UK. But I’m not a fascist either. Damnit reds used to call me that name back in the 1980’s because I supported Maggie! I guess the idea is that you throw enough shit at someone, some will eventually stick… So what characteristics do you have that makes you right wing (or admire in other right wing people)? I’m not actually from Brighton, I’m originally from Manchester, but grew up in Lincolnshire in a small steel town called Scunthorpe. I saw the way the trades unions destroyed the steel industry. I watched their rally through the school windows. ‘What do we want? 20%! When do we want it? Now!’ Twenty fuckin percent! About three years later all but three of the steelworkers in that town were shut for good. Later I left school and came down here to work on building sites owned by my dad. I was living nearby when the IRA blew up the Grand Hotel, I saw them pull Norman Tebbit’s wife out of the rubble. Then I saw the defiance in Maggie’s eyes the next day, what a woman! Later I saw the miners, who were on strike, descend upon Brighton. I couldn’t feel any sympathy for them. Arthur Scargill was leading them towards their own destruction. They lost the battle with Maggie and then saw their industry destroyed. They too might have bought themselves some time if they hadn’t tried to bring down the government. I also saw what the Tories did to Maggie, that was brutal and I didn’t like it. Then we had John Major, who would sign the Maastricht Treaty, and that is when the Tories fell apart. One who walked away and never went back was Nigel Farage. Ever since then he has had my support. I only hope that he can stop the rot, and get this country back in its feet, because it is far from it now. We need conservatism, but not the rubbish offered up by the Tories. We need Reform UK, we need Nigel." honest and lived views, well done keeping it true to you
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I wouldn't call myself a socialist I'm more of an anarchist. I would quite like the entire banking system collapse and live in a dystopian world were water would be currency or maybe fuel or cigarettes? I would change my name to Deacon or Preacher as they seem to be in charge” Ha ha ha! I have seen anarchists many times over the years. Was very popular when we were punks. The thing is, and I’m sure Lemmy pointed it out once. Most of those wannabes wouldn’t survive real anarchy. They wouldn’t last a week. "errrr that was just a satirical joke! But who could argue with Lemmy he gave us Silver Machine when he was in Hawkwind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion." "Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact." I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)? In my experience, the two sides are "lefties" and "fascist bastards". It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. They see the right as being evil people that want to destroy them, and the more extreme of them turn to hatred of the right. The right however are less emotional, and see the left as misguided, or ill educated. They see them as fools, and the more extreme turn to contempt for the left. Hatred is a far stronger emotion than contempt, hence the milder phrase of "leftie" being used by the right, and the stronger "fascist bastard" being used by the left. You can see this in phrases like "loony left" and "never kissed a Tory".that's interesting as I see many on the right being led by emotion. I do cringe at some of the language used by people with similar views to me, and the idea of never fucking a Tory etc. I tend to see the right aiming uncomfortable words at other people rather than their political counterparts. " I fucked a tory. But wouldn't repeat the encounter. It wasn't his political leanings but being racist. Or are we saying those on the right are more racist than those on the left? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work." If we can, we should. Isn't it just about speed and cost? Re cars, I only hear of x time to go electric. Can we not compromise and trail blaze hybrids? I save a third of petrol consumption with my hybrid. Is this figure not worth celebrating and pushing for on a larger scale? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. If we can, we should. Isn't it just about speed and cost? Re cars, I only hear of x time to go electric. Can we not compromise and trail blaze hybrids? I save a third of petrol consumption with my hybrid. Is this figure not worth celebrating and pushing for on a larger scale?" That’s far too sensible. Instead we need to push ahead with arbitrary timescales for rolling out full EV’s that everyone knows will never happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)? In my experience, the two sides are "lefties" and "fascist bastards". It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. They see the right as being evil people that want to destroy them, and the more extreme of them turn to hatred of the right. The right however are less emotional, and see the left as misguided, or ill educated. They see them as fools, and the more extreme turn to contempt for the left. Hatred is a far stronger emotion than contempt, hence the milder phrase of "leftie" being used by the right, and the stronger "fascist bastard" being used by the left. You can see this in phrases like "loony left" and "never kissed a Tory".that's interesting as I see many on the right being led by emotion. I do cringe at some of the language used by people with similar views to me, and the idea of never fucking a Tory etc. I tend to see the right aiming uncomfortable words at other people rather than their political counterparts. I fucked a tory. But wouldn't repeat the encounter. It wasn't his political leanings but being racist. Or are we saying those on the right are more racist than those on the left? "I can’t understand this “I fucked or I wouldn’t fuck a Tory. I have never once considered how a sexual partner votes, I’m either attracted to them or not, and that is looks and personality. Do people have questionnaires they expect their new encounters to fill in, or do you bore the life out of them with political talk first | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work." Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)? In my experience, the two sides are "lefties" and "fascist bastards". It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. They see the right as being evil people that want to destroy them, and the more extreme of them turn to hatred of the right. The right however are less emotional, and see the left as misguided, or ill educated. They see them as fools, and the more extreme turn to contempt for the left. Hatred is a far stronger emotion than contempt, hence the milder phrase of "leftie" being used by the right, and the stronger "fascist bastard" being used by the left. You can see this in phrases like "loony left" and "never kissed a Tory".that's interesting as I see many on the right being led by emotion. I do cringe at some of the language used by people with similar views to me, and the idea of never fucking a Tory etc. I tend to see the right aiming uncomfortable words at other people rather than their political counterparts. I fucked a tory. But wouldn't repeat the encounter. It wasn't his political leanings but being racist. Or are we saying those on the right are more racist than those on the left?
I can’t understand this “I fucked or I wouldn’t fuck a Tory.
I have never once considered how a sexual partner votes, I’m either attracted to them or not, and that is looks and personality.
Do people have questionnaires they expect their new encounters to fill in, or do you bore the life out of them with political talk first "Political leanings are definitely not a criterion for fucking. I never ask. Extremely rarely do I find out. There are worse things than tory voters in the world | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. If we can, we should. Isn't it just about speed and cost? Re cars, I only hear of x time to go electric. Can we not compromise and trail blaze hybrids? I save a third of petrol consumption with my hybrid. Is this figure not worth celebrating and pushing for on a larger scale? That’s far too sensible. Instead we need to push ahead with arbitrary timescales for rolling out full EV’s that everyone knows will never happen." This is a good example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see people who are seemingly more right wing (certainly right of centre) on here often calling people “lefties” and it got me wondering what general characteristics defines someone as being a leftie or a righty (this label doesn’t seem to be a thing…yet)? In my experience, the two sides are "lefties" and "fascist bastards". It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. They see the right as being evil people that want to destroy them, and the more extreme of them turn to hatred of the right. The right however are less emotional, and see the left as misguided, or ill educated. They see them as fools, and the more extreme turn to contempt for the left. Hatred is a far stronger emotion than contempt, hence the milder phrase of "leftie" being used by the right, and the stronger "fascist bastard" being used by the left. You can see this in phrases like "loony left" and "never kissed a Tory".that's interesting as I see many on the right being led by emotion. I do cringe at some of the language used by people with similar views to me, and the idea of never fucking a Tory etc. I tend to see the right aiming uncomfortable words at other people rather than their political counterparts. I fucked a tory. But wouldn't repeat the encounter. It wasn't his political leanings but being racist. Or are we saying those on the right are more racist than those on the left?
I can’t understand this “I fucked or I wouldn’t fuck a Tory.
I have never once considered how a sexual partner votes, I’m either attracted to them or not, and that is looks and personality.
Do people have questionnaires they expect their new encounters to fill in, or do you bore the life out of them with political talk first
Political leanings are definitely not a criterion for fucking. I never ask. Extremely rarely do I find out. There are worse things than tory voters in the world "I’m not sure some would agree with you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. " I’m really worried about what new sexual deviance I don’t know about. What are ring wingers, I need to know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. I’m really worried about what new sexual deviance I don’t know about. What are ring wingers, I need to know " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. If we can, we should. Isn't it just about speed and cost? Re cars, I only hear of x time to go electric. Can we not compromise and trail blaze hybrids? I save a third of petrol consumption with my hybrid. Is this figure not worth celebrating and pushing for on a larger scale? That’s far too sensible. Instead we need to push ahead with arbitrary timescales for rolling out full EV’s that everyone knows will never happen. This is a good example." Perhaps come back to me when you’ve actually done something to combat climate change yourself. No EV. No heat pump. Nothing. Just more Green hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. If we can, we should. Isn't it just about speed and cost? Re cars, I only hear of x time to go electric. Can we not compromise and trail blaze hybrids? I save a third of petrol consumption with my hybrid. Is this figure not worth celebrating and pushing for on a larger scale? That’s far too sensible. Instead we need to push ahead with arbitrary timescales for rolling out full EV’s that everyone knows will never happen. This is a good example. Perhaps come back to me when you’ve actually done something to combat climate change yourself. No EV. No heat pump. Nothing. Just more Green hypocrisy." Another fine example. Hope you're able to see these Mr D. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. If we can, we should. Isn't it just about speed and cost? Re cars, I only hear of x time to go electric. Can we not compromise and trail blaze hybrids? I save a third of petrol consumption with my hybrid. Is this figure not worth celebrating and pushing for on a larger scale? That’s far too sensible. Instead we need to push ahead with arbitrary timescales for rolling out full EV’s that everyone knows will never happen. This is a good example. Perhaps come back to me when you’ve actually done something to combat climate change yourself. No EV. No heat pump. Nothing. Just more Green hypocrisy. Another fine example. Hope you're able to see these Mr D. " As a “man of science” why are you not following it yourself? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. If we can, we should. Isn't it just about speed and cost? Re cars, I only hear of x time to go electric. Can we not compromise and trail blaze hybrids? I save a third of petrol consumption with my hybrid. Is this figure not worth celebrating and pushing for on a larger scale? That’s far too sensible. Instead we need to push ahead with arbitrary timescales for rolling out full EV’s that everyone knows will never happen. This is a good example. Perhaps come back to me when you’ve actually done something to combat climate change yourself. No EV. No heat pump. Nothing. Just more Green hypocrisy. Another fine example. Hope you're able to see these Mr D. As a “man of science” why are you not following it yourself? " Keep 'em coming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. If we can, we should. Isn't it just about speed and cost? Re cars, I only hear of x time to go electric. Can we not compromise and trail blaze hybrids? I save a third of petrol consumption with my hybrid. Is this figure not worth celebrating and pushing for on a larger scale? That’s far too sensible. Instead we need to push ahead with arbitrary timescales for rolling out full EV’s that everyone knows will never happen. This is a good example. Perhaps come back to me when you’ve actually done something to combat climate change yourself. No EV. No heat pump. Nothing. Just more Green hypocrisy. Another fine example. Hope you're able to see these Mr D. As a “man of science” why are you not following it yourself? Keep 'em coming. "Perhaps share your scientific credentials with the forum. I’m sure we could all do with a mid week laugh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work." I know these are extremes, but there's debate if it's rational to say of something doesn't affect me, why bother ? Is selfish rational? That's an interesting philosophical debate! But probably does highlight the difference between left and right ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. " This is creepy.. are you suggesting that left wing groups are studying right wing people to understand why they are not thinking the right way? What are they going to do with the findings is the worrying part I guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. This is creepy.. are you suggesting that left wing groups are studying right wing people to understand why they are not thinking the right way? What are they going to do with the findings is the worrying part I guess. " the double is they are thinking the right way. We need them to think the left way, comrade. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. This is creepy.. are you suggesting that left wing groups are studying right wing people to understand why they are not thinking the right way? What are they going to do with the findings is the worrying part I guess. the double is they are thinking the right way. We need them to think the left way, comrade. "Yes comrade, they are definitely thinking the right way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. This is creepy.. are you suggesting that left wing groups are studying right wing people to understand why they are not thinking the right way? What are they going to do with the findings is the worrying part I guess. " Nope. I'm saying psychologists are studying the phenomenon of climate change denial | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. This is creepy.. are you suggesting that left wing groups are studying right wing people to understand why they are not thinking the right way? What are they going to do with the findings is the worrying part I guess. Nope. I'm saying psychologists are studying the phenomenon of climate change denial " Johnny, I know you have a typo in the post but it translates to: there are studies being done on why right wingers don’t accept climate change. It is becoming a field of study itself”. That indicates that anyone studying the right wingers, can’t be right wing themselves. It is also says that they have turned their work into a field of study that again would only contain those on the left. What’s going on Johnny, are you part of the study group | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. This is creepy.. are you suggesting that left wing groups are studying right wing people to understand why they are not thinking the right way? What are they going to do with the findings is the worrying part I guess. Nope. I'm saying psychologists are studying the phenomenon of climate change denial " Is climate change denial strictly limited to someone who would be right wing? The question Notme asked was exactly what I thought you were saying too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems to me that those on the left are more driven by emotion. Not always, as with climate science, the lefties are driven by information, science, fact. I disagree. Both sides see the same facts. The overly emotional people see a climate emergency and that we'll all die if we don't do something right now. The overly rational people see that the changes are small and won't affect any of us in our lifetime, so there's no point bothering. Of course, those are the extremes. The majority of us lie in between, but those more swayed by emotion think that we should be making changes right now, even if it makes our lives more difficult. Those more swayed by rationality think that we need to do something, but we also need to make sure that any proposed solutions will actually work. Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. This is creepy.. are you suggesting that left wing groups are studying right wing people to understand why they are not thinking the right way? What are they going to do with the findings is the worrying part I guess. Nope. I'm saying psychologists are studying the phenomenon of climate change denial Johnny, I know you have a typo in the post but it translates to: there are studies being done on why right wingers don’t accept climate change. It is becoming a field of study itself”. That indicates that anyone studying the right wingers, can’t be right wing themselves. It is also says that they have turned their work into a field of study that again would only contain those on the left. What’s going on Johnny, are you part of the study group "Okay, poor explanation on my behalf. Part of the psychological studies looks at why it's almost exclusively right wing people who deny climate change is happening, or who don't think it's really a problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Nope. I'm saying psychologists are studying the phenomenon of climate change denial" *********************************** More non-jobs. Who pays these people....??" Hey... I took a survey of 100 people and reached a conclusion. That's science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Nope. I'm saying psychologists are studying the phenomenon of climate change denial" *********************************** More non-jobs. Who pays these people....??" Universities. The pursuit of knowledge and understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…! "We're still on the OP, just! The right wing seems to be against scientific method and against learning more about the world we live in and how human beings work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…!
We're still on the OP, just!
The right wing seems to be against scientific method and against learning more about the world we live in and how human beings work. "Yeah but some decided to start narrowing in. To pull back out and reiterate your point… Right Wing = generally sceptical on climate change. Why? What drives this scepticism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…!
We're still on the OP, just!
The right wing seems to be against scientific method and against learning more about the world we live in and how human beings work. "There must be those on the left who also believe the science isn’t real when it comes to climate change? I honestly don’t believe it to be a left or right only. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…!
We're still on the OP, just!
The right wing seems to be against scientific method and against learning more about the world we live in and how human beings work. "*********************************** I've not read such tripe on here for a long time, if I ever did, that is........... I've a busy career to attend to now so carry on with your fantasy if you will. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW Far left isn't just Communism . Communism is the Utopian world where the government withers away and people just work in communes for the sake of the society instead of themselves. Far left can also be Socialism where the government owns all means of production. " Not correct. Socialism is not far left. Communism is far left. That is an accepted definition worldwide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW Far left isn't just Communism . Communism is the Utopian world where the government withers away and people just work in communes for the sake of the society instead of themselves. Far left can also be Socialism where the government owns all means of production. Not correct. Socialism is not far left. Communism is far left. That is an accepted definition worldwide." Do you believe USSR wasn't far left? That's not communism. That's Socialism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…!
We're still on the OP, just!
The right wing seems to be against scientific method and against learning more about the world we live in and how human beings work.
There must be those on the left who also believe the science isn’t real when it comes to climate change?
I honestly don’t believe it to be a left or right only."I don’t know but you would assume that to be correct as people and their views are complex and not linear or binary regardless of what some try to claim. But that was why I used the word “generally” as it appears that most climate change sceptics sit to the right wouldn’t you agree? If so, then why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…! "Yeah gone to shit! I try to not get involved in political arguments on line as it just winds me up. But unfortunately my meds didn't arrive at the chemist on Friday so my alter ego is coming back. Must chase harley street today! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…!
We're still on the OP, just!
The right wing seems to be against scientific method and against learning more about the world we live in and how human beings work.
***********************************
I've not read such tripe on here for a long time, if I ever did, that is...........
I've a busy career to attend to now so carry on with your fantasy if you will."It would be lovely if you engaged on the topic rather than just bashing you fav fab friend | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW Far left isn't just Communism . Communism is the Utopian world where the government withers away and people just work in communes for the sake of the society instead of themselves. Far left can also be Socialism where the government owns all means of production. Not correct. Socialism is not far left. Communism is far left. That is an accepted definition worldwide. Do you believe USSR wasn't far left? That's not communism. That's Socialism " Ok here we go again. Are you going to claim the National Socialists (Nazis) were Socialist? Is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic? Look into how the USSR was administered. It was Communist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others" Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone "You should see who started it by calling people unscientific | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…!
We're still on the OP, just!
The right wing seems to be against scientific method and against learning more about the world we live in and how human beings work.
There must be those on the left who also believe the science isn’t real when it comes to climate change?
I honestly don’t believe it to be a left or right only."Probably some. But the studies show it's overwhelmingly right wingers. I can't as I understand the intricacies of the topic well enough to summarise. But if you're interested, Katherine Hayhoe has lots of interesting things to read and to consume. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone "You're going leftie again. Attacking a right winger whilst defending the left winger
This was all started by 'this is a good example' by a prominent leftie. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…!
We're still on the OP, just!
The right wing seems to be against scientific method and against learning more about the world we live in and how human beings work.
***********************************
I've not read such tripe on here for a long time, if I ever did, that is...........
I've a busy career to attend to now so carry on with your fantasy if you will.
It would be lovely if you engaged on the topic rather than just bashing you fav fab friend "I think it's a good example of the point being made. Information and scientific learning is written off as "tripe". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone
You should see who started it by calling people unscientific "My earlier comment on the thread doing so well was aimed at all. This isn’t a playground. BTW further to your point on the USSR - the ruling party/government was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. They went by other names too. Never Socialist though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone
You're going leftie again. Attacking a right winger whilst defending the left winger
This was all started by 'this is a good example' by a prominent leftie. "Give me a chance to type. I pulled up EVERYONE for deviating from the topic. We were actually having an interesting (I think) discussion on actual and perceived differences. Be nice to continue before we hit 174 as some great posts in here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone
You're going leftie again. Attacking a right winger whilst defending the left winger
This was all started by 'this is a good example' by a prominent leftie.
Give me a chance to type. I pulled up EVERYONE for deviating from the topic.
We were actually having an interesting (I think) discussion on actual and perceived differences. Be nice to continue before we hit 174 as some great posts in here."You 'pulled everyone up' in a single text, then you misquoted Johnny to make his stance more palatable. We see you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW Far left isn't just Communism . Communism is the Utopian world where the government withers away and people just work in communes for the sake of the society instead of themselves. Far left can also be Socialism where the government owns all means of production. Not correct. Socialism is not far left. Communism is far left. That is an accepted definition worldwide. Do you believe USSR wasn't far left? That's not communism. That's Socialism Ok here we go again. Are you going to claim the National Socialists (Nazis) were Socialist? Is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic? Look into how the USSR was administered. It was Communist. " You seem to have misunderstood what communism means. If a party calls itself communist or socialist, it doesn't means their system was communist or socialist. In case you don't know, there is a thing called Christian communism, which I believe has been the only successful form of communism. No, the Nazis weren't socialists just because they had socalism in their name. They practiced a mixed economy. Marx's theory was this - Socialism is a system where the means of production are taken away from individuals by the governing dictatorship of proletariat. Eventually as people aren't used to private property and all the necessary conditions are set, the government will wither away and people will work in communes and not own anything. The Bolsheviks call themselves communist because they claim that a communist society was the ultimate aim. But alas, they never reached their ultimate aim. They were socialist. How far left one is, depends on how much of the economy one wants to be run by the government. Far left is where all means of production are owned by the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW Far left isn't just Communism . Communism is the Utopian world where the government withers away and people just work in communes for the sake of the society instead of themselves. Far left can also be Socialism where the government owns all means of production. Not correct. Socialism is not far left. Communism is far left. That is an accepted definition worldwide. Do you believe USSR wasn't far left? That's not communism. That's Socialism Ok here we go again. Are you going to claim the National Socialists (Nazis) were Socialist? Is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic? Look into how the USSR was administered. It was Communist. You seem to have misunderstood what communism means. If a party calls itself communist or socialist, it doesn't means their system was communist or socialist. In case you don't know, there is a thing called Christian communism, which I believe has been the only successful form of communism. No, the Nazis weren't socialists just because they had socalism in their name. They practiced a mixed economy. Marx's theory was this - Socialism is a system where the means of production are taken away from individuals by the governing dictatorship of proletariat. Eventually as people aren't used to private property and all the necessary conditions are set, the government will wither away and people will work in communes and not own anything. The Bolsheviks call themselves communist because they claim that a communist society was the ultimate aim. But alas, they never reached their ultimate aim. They were socialist. How far left one is, depends on how much of the economy one wants to be run by the government. Far left is where all means of production are owned by the government." Missed it on this post - "the government will wither away and people will work in communes and not own anything." This society where government withers away and people live in communes for each other is communism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone
You're going leftie again. Attacking a right winger whilst defending the left winger
This was all started by 'this is a good example' by a prominent leftie.
Give me a chance to type. I pulled up EVERYONE for deviating from the topic.
We were actually having an interesting (I think) discussion on actual and perceived differences. Be nice to continue before we hit 174 as some great posts in here.
You 'pulled everyone up' in a single text, then you misquoted Johnny to make his stance more palatable.
We see you "Huh? Not intentional. I didn’t misquote, I tried to open out the discussion with what I think is a valid question. So let’s get back to that… Why does it appear that it is generally more right leaning people who are sceptical of climate change? What drives that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone
You're going leftie again. Attacking a right winger whilst defending the left winger
This was all started by 'this is a good example' by a prominent leftie.
Give me a chance to type. I pulled up EVERYONE for deviating from the topic.
We were actually having an interesting (I think) discussion on actual and perceived differences. Be nice to continue before we hit 174 as some great posts in here.
You 'pulled everyone up' in a single text, then you misquoted Johnny to make his stance more palatable.
We see you
Huh? Not intentional. I didn’t misquote, I tried to open out the discussion with what I think is a valid question. So let’s get back to that…
Why does it appear that it is generally more right leaning people who are sceptical of climate change? What drives that?""To pull back out and reiterate your point… Right Wing = generally sceptical on climate change. Why? What drives this scepticism?" Johnny's point is never that Right Wing = 'generally sceptical'. His point is always Right Wing = science deniers. That's a misquote if ever there was one. The reason it appears right wingers are more generally sceptical on climate change is your own views. They really aren't, they just question why we put so much onus on what we can do and feel the Govt have pushed too far, too quickly. I have asked if it's only right wingers who feel this way but as yet, no answers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BIG SIGH - the thread was doing so well staying on topic but then…!
We're still on the OP, just!
The right wing seems to be against scientific method and against learning more about the world we live in and how human beings work.
There must be those on the left who also believe the science isn’t real when it comes to climate change?
I honestly don’t believe it to be a left or right only.
I don’t know but you would assume that to be correct as people and their views are complex and not linear or binary regardless of what some try to claim.
But that was why I used the word “generally” as it appears that most climate change sceptics sit to the right wouldn’t you agree?
If so, then why?"I don't have any figures to back the numbers of people who believe or don't believe the science of climate change. My observations are those most likely to be vocal in support of scientific claims on climate change will come from the left who are also campaigning. That is gold dust from a media perspective and they go looking for a right wing response to the left wing militants. And that is what I see as being presented on a daily basis, the media taking soundbites from 2 extremes. In the real world I think it is less of a concern across the population of the nation and globe, and across both right and left. Normal everyday people tend to just get on with things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW Far left isn't just Communism . Communism is the Utopian world where the government withers away and people just work in communes for the sake of the society instead of themselves. Far left can also be Socialism where the government owns all means of production. Not correct. Socialism is not far left. Communism is far left. That is an accepted definition worldwide. Do you believe USSR wasn't far left? That's not communism. That's Socialism Ok here we go again. Are you going to claim the National Socialists (Nazis) were Socialist? Is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic? Look into how the USSR was administered. It was Communist. You seem to have misunderstood what communism means. If a party calls itself communist or socialist, it doesn't means their system was communist or socialist. In case you don't know, there is a thing called Christian communism, which I believe has been the only successful form of communism. No, the Nazis weren't socialists just because they had socalism in their name. They practiced a mixed economy. Marx's theory was this - Socialism is a system where the means of production are taken away from individuals by the governing dictatorship of proletariat. Eventually as people aren't used to private property and all the necessary conditions are set, the government will wither away and people will work in communes and not own anything. The Bolsheviks call themselves communist because they claim that a communist society was the ultimate aim. But alas, they never reached their ultimate aim. They were socialist. How far left one is, depends on how much of the economy one wants to be run by the government. Far left is where all means of production are owned by the government. Missed it on this post - "the government will wither away and people will work in communes and not own anything." This society where government withers away and people live in communes for each other is communism. " Interesting and I can see why you would believe that. I disagree. It was a one party state ruled by the Communist Party. However, overton window time…if you believe the USSR was Socialist and not Communist then where do the Socialist parties across Europe sit on the axes? They sure aren’t as far left as the USSR was! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW Far left isn't just Communism . Communism is the Utopian world where the government withers away and people just work in communes for the sake of the society instead of themselves. Far left can also be Socialism where the government owns all means of production. Not correct. Socialism is not far left. Communism is far left. That is an accepted definition worldwide. Do you believe USSR wasn't far left? That's not communism. That's Socialism Ok here we go again. Are you going to claim the National Socialists (Nazis) were Socialist? Is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic? Look into how the USSR was administered. It was Communist. You seem to have misunderstood what communism means. If a party calls itself communist or socialist, it doesn't means their system was communist or socialist. In case you don't know, there is a thing called Christian communism, which I believe has been the only successful form of communism. No, the Nazis weren't socialists just because they had socalism in their name. They practiced a mixed economy. Marx's theory was this - Socialism is a system where the means of production are taken away from individuals by the governing dictatorship of proletariat. Eventually as people aren't used to private property and all the necessary conditions are set, the government will wither away and people will work in communes and not own anything. The Bolsheviks call themselves communist because they claim that a communist society was the ultimate aim. But alas, they never reached their ultimate aim. They were socialist. How far left one is, depends on how much of the economy one wants to be run by the government. Far left is where all means of production are owned by the government. Missed it on this post - "the government will wither away and people will work in communes and not own anything." This society where government withers away and people live in communes for each other is communism. Interesting and I can see why you would believe that. I disagree. It was a one party state ruled by the Communist Party. However, overton window time…if you believe the USSR was Socialist and not Communist then where do the Socialist parties across Europe sit on the axes? They sure aren’t as far left as the USSR was!" You ridicule people who claim Nazis were socialists because they called themselves socialists and yet you make the same mistake by assuming USSR was communist just because they were ruled by the communist party? The communist party themselves would not admit that USSR's system was communism. Communism was their end goal but what they had at that time was socialism which was supposed to lead to communism. But they never achieved that. It's in the name itself - commune - commmunism. Their version is Marxist communism. As I mentioned above, there is also Christian communism. It depends on what the socialist parties want. How much of the economic activity do these parties want the government to control? Different people have different opinions on whether healthcare, education, infrastructure like roads, public transport, water and electricity to be nationalised. Depending on how many of these they want to be nationalised and how much tax they want to collect, they can range from Centre right to centre left. If they want more industries to be nationalised, they get more and more to far left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone
You're going leftie again. Attacking a right winger whilst defending the left winger
This was all started by 'this is a good example' by a prominent leftie.
Give me a chance to type. I pulled up EVERYONE for deviating from the topic.
We were actually having an interesting (I think) discussion on actual and perceived differences. Be nice to continue before we hit 174 as some great posts in here.
You 'pulled everyone up' in a single text, then you misquoted Johnny to make his stance more palatable.
We see you
Huh? Not intentional. I didn’t misquote, I tried to open out the discussion with what I think is a valid question. So let’s get back to that…
Why does it appear that it is generally more right leaning people who are sceptical of climate change? What drives that?
"To pull back out and reiterate your point…
Right Wing = generally sceptical on climate change. Why? What drives this scepticism?"
Johnny's point is never that Right Wing = 'generally sceptical'. His point is always Right Wing = science deniers.
That's a misquote if ever there was one.
The reason it appears right wingers are more generally sceptical on climate change is your own views. They really aren't, they just question why we put so much onus on what we can do and feel the Govt have pushed too far, too quickly.
I have asked if it's only right wingers who feel this way but as yet, no answers. "Oh Feisty you and your semantics arguments. I don’t want to play. That was not a misquote. It was reframing the question to drive a more general discussion. And oh look. It worked! Even you answered!!
You make an interesting point but my own observations (not just on here) are that it appears that climate change scepticism is definitely more prevalent in people holding right wing views. There is definitely a venn diagram of overlapping views that generally (note that word) define someone as right wing and climate change scepticism is part of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself." I'd like to read one of these studies. Can you give me a pointer as to how I can find one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps come back to me when you’ve actually done something to combat climate change yourself. No EV. No heat pump. Nothing. Just more Green hypocrisy." "Another fine example. Hope you're able to see these Mr D." I see it, but I'm not sure which of your points you think it's demonstrating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A leftist definitely wants the government to hold our hands every step of the way, and really hates shareholders, business making money and other people having nice things. A righty wants little government interference in the day to day, likes the idea of law and order, likes money and doesn't like people telling them what they should or shouldn't be spending their cash on. " id go with that lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You ridicule people who claim Nazis were socialists because they called themselves socialists and yet you make the same mistake by assuming USSR was communist just because they were ruled by the communist party? The communist party themselves would not admit that USSR's system was communism. Communism was their end goal but what they had at that time was socialism which was supposed to lead to communism. But they never achieved that. It's in the name itself - commune - commmunism. Their version is Marxist communism. As I mentioned above, there is also Christian communism. " snipped to reduce length of post. Ok I can see where you are coming from but I still disagree. 1. The Nazis having the word Socialist in their name ceased to have any meaning once Hitler took control and reshaped the party. It was purely branding to attract working class support. That is demonstrably different to an actual Communist Party being in control of the USSR. They weren't pretending to be Communist! 2. Your point seems to be on ultimate end goal of Communism and you do have a point if we are going to be purist about it. As per earlier in the thread, I agree there has never been a successful Communist state because of (in my view) anthropological reasons. But I will concede to some of your argument and sa this... "in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires." not my words, someone way smarter. 3. A key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure. Good discussion, hope we can keep it along these lines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. I'd like to read one of these studies. Can you give me a pointer as to how I can find one?" Have a look at the work of Katherine Hayhoe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps come back to me when you’ve actually done something to combat climate change yourself. No EV. No heat pump. Nothing. Just more Green hypocrisy. Another fine example. Hope you're able to see these Mr D. I see it, but I'm not sure which of your points you think it's demonstrating." An unscientific approach. Attacking the poster with irrelevant nonsense instead of engaging on the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Couldn't disagree more. There are studies done on why ring wingers don't accept climate science. It's becoming a field of study in itself. I'd like to read one of these studies. Can you give me a pointer as to how I can find one? Have a look at the work of Katherine Hayhoe. " I will take a look later | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 1. The Nazis having the word Socialist in their name ceased to have any meaning once Hitler took control and reshaped the party. It was purely branding to attract working class support. That is demonstrably different to an actual Communist Party being in control of the USSR. They weren't pretending to be Communist! " Wanting to be communist and actually being communist are two different things. We are talking about the actual system here. USSR followed a system which was socalist. USSR wasn't communist. They never reached communism. " "in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires." " Whoever said this states that they aren't communist by definition. But for the sake of convenience, it is ok to call it communism. Even the communist manifesto clearly defines that the model they are looking to follow is socialism. Communism is when the government and private property withers away. " 3. A key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure. " Socialism and communism are two different economic models. By your definition, the concept of Christian communism shouldn't exist. You are confusing Marxist communism with communism. Socialism and communism - economic models There are multiple ways to achieve them - Democratic socialism, Leninism, Marxist communism, Christian communism. Take communism for example - A society where there is no government but people work for the commune instead of themselves. How do you achieve this? Marx had a naive theory that after grabbing power and making the country socialist, people would eventually learn to be part of the Commune. Christian communism on the other hand, gets people to work for the commune by using God and a promise of heaven after their death. These are two different theories on how you can form a communist society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 1. The Nazis having the word Socialist in their name ceased to have any meaning once Hitler took control and reshaped the party. It was purely branding to attract working class support. That is demonstrably different to an actual Communist Party being in control of the USSR. They weren't pretending to be Communist! Wanting to be communist and actually being communist are two different things. We are talking about the actual system here. USSR followed a system which was socalist. USSR wasn't communist. They never reached communism. "in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires." Whoever said this states that they aren't communist by definition. But for the sake of convenience, it is ok to call it communism. Even the communist manifesto clearly defines that the model they are looking to follow is socialism. Communism is when the government and private property withers away. 3. A key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure. Socialism and communism are two different economic models. By your definition, the concept of Christian communism shouldn't exist. You are confusing Marxist communism with communism. Socialism and communism - economic models There are multiple ways to achieve them - Democratic socialism, Leninism, Marxist communism, Christian communism. Take communism for example - A society where there is no government but people work for the commune instead of themselves. How do you achieve this? Marx had a naive theory that after grabbing power and making the country socialist, people would eventually learn to be part of the Commune. Christian communism on the other hand, gets people to work for the commune by using God and a promise of heaven after their death. These are two different theories on how you can form a communist society." Indeed but then discussing this in the context of UK politics today, it means the Labour Party are most certainly not Socialist. Social Democrats at best wouldn’t you say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You ridicule people who claim Nazis were socialists because they called themselves socialists and yet you make the same mistake by assuming USSR was communist just because they were ruled by the communist party? The communist party themselves would not admit that USSR's system was communism. Communism was their end goal but what they had at that time was socialism which was supposed to lead to communism. But they never achieved that. It's in the name itself - commune - commmunism. Their version is Marxist communism. As I mentioned above, there is also Christian communism. snipped to reduce length of post. Ok I can see where you are coming from but I still disagree. 1. The Nazis having the word Socialist in their name ceased to have any meaning once Hitler took control and reshaped the party. It was purely branding to attract working class support. That is demonstrably different to an actual Communist Party being in control of the USSR. They weren't pretending to be Communist! 2. Your point seems to be on ultimate end goal of Communism and you do have a point if we are going to be purist about it. As per earlier in the thread, I agree there has never been a successful Communist state because of (in my view) anthropological reasons. But I will concede to some of your argument and sa this... "in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires." not my words, someone way smarter. 3. A key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure. Good discussion, hope we can keep it along these lines. "But Lenin, a Marxist, worked towards the ideology of communism. My history is sketchy here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You ridicule people who claim Nazis were socialists because they called themselves socialists and yet you make the same mistake by assuming USSR was communist just because they were ruled by the communist party? The communist party themselves would not admit that USSR's system was communism. Communism was their end goal but what they had at that time was socialism which was supposed to lead to communism. But they never achieved that. It's in the name itself - commune - commmunism. Their version is Marxist communism. As I mentioned above, there is also Christian communism. snipped to reduce length of post. Ok I can see where you are coming from but I still disagree. 1. The Nazis having the word Socialist in their name ceased to have any meaning once Hitler took control and reshaped the party. It was purely branding to attract working class support. That is demonstrably different to an actual Communist Party being in control of the USSR. They weren't pretending to be Communist! 2. Your point seems to be on ultimate end goal of Communism and you do have a point if we are going to be purist about it. As per earlier in the thread, I agree there has never been a successful Communist state because of (in my view) anthropological reasons. But I will concede to some of your argument and sa this... "in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires." not my words, someone way smarter. 3. A key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure. Good discussion, hope we can keep it along these lines.
But Lenin, a Marxist, worked towards the ideology of communism.
My history is sketchy here."Lostindreams identifies that Socialism comes in many flavours with progressive move to the far far left of Communism. What that means, particularly in the context of discussing UK politics, is that “Socialism” as a term is actually too broad to have any useful meaning. If you used a linear scale with utopian Communism at 10 then the USSR would still likely have been a 9. The Labour Party at best would be a 2. Hence “lefties” being synonymous with socialist now seems to be questionable for this thread! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 1. The Nazis having the word Socialist in their name ceased to have any meaning once Hitler took control and reshaped the party. It was purely branding to attract working class support. That is demonstrably different to an actual Communist Party being in control of the USSR. They weren't pretending to be Communist! Wanting to be communist and actually being communist are two different things. We are talking about the actual system here. USSR followed a system which was socalist. USSR wasn't communist. They never reached communism. "in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires." Whoever said this states that they aren't communist by definition. But for the sake of convenience, it is ok to call it communism. Even the communist manifesto clearly defines that the model they are looking to follow is socialism. Communism is when the government and private property withers away. 3. A key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure. Socialism and communism are two different economic models. By your definition, the concept of Christian communism shouldn't exist. You are confusing Marxist communism with communism. Socialism and communism - economic models There are multiple ways to achieve them - Democratic socialism, Leninism, Marxist communism, Christian communism. Take communism for example - A society where there is no government but people work for the commune instead of themselves. How do you achieve this? Marx had a naive theory that after grabbing power and making the country socialist, people would eventually learn to be part of the Commune. Christian communism on the other hand, gets people to work for the commune by using God and a promise of heaven after their death. These are two different theories on how you can form a communist society. Indeed but then discussing this in the context of UK politics today, it means the Labour Party are most certainly not Socialist. Social Democrats at best wouldn’t you say?" If we go by the definition of Socialism as government ownership, there are obviously scales to it. The more you want the government to own and run, the more socialist and far left you are. Starmer's Labour(if we can believe what he says) is much closer to centre. But Corbyn's Labour was further to the left because he wanted more industries to be nationalised. Social democracy is a bit confusing because it believes in a capitalistic economy but uses taxation to improve society as a whole. Both Labour and Tories in UK are social democrats with Labour on a higher scale. There is a huge overlap between social democracy and socialism. But where it stops being social democracy and becomes purely socialism is a blurry line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You ridicule people who claim Nazis were socialists because they called themselves socialists and yet you make the same mistake by assuming USSR was communist just because they were ruled by the communist party? The communist party themselves would not admit that USSR's system was communism. Communism was their end goal but what they had at that time was socialism which was supposed to lead to communism. But they never achieved that. It's in the name itself - commune - commmunism. Their version is Marxist communism. As I mentioned above, there is also Christian communism. snipped to reduce length of post. Ok I can see where you are coming from but I still disagree. 1. The Nazis having the word Socialist in their name ceased to have any meaning once Hitler took control and reshaped the party. It was purely branding to attract working class support. That is demonstrably different to an actual Communist Party being in control of the USSR. They weren't pretending to be Communist! 2. Your point seems to be on ultimate end goal of Communism and you do have a point if we are going to be purist about it. As per earlier in the thread, I agree there has never been a successful Communist state because of (in my view) anthropological reasons. But I will concede to some of your argument and sa this... "in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires." not my words, someone way smarter. 3. A key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure. Good discussion, hope we can keep it along these lines.
But Lenin, a Marxist, worked towards the ideology of communism.
My history is sketchy here.
Lostindreams identifies that Socialism comes in many flavours with progressive move to the far far left of Communism. What that means, particularly in the context of discussing UK politics, is that “Socialism” as a term is actually too broad to have any useful meaning.
If you used a linear scale with utopian Communism at 10 then the USSR would still likely have been a 9. The Labour Party at best would be a 2.
Hence “lefties” being synonymous with socialist now seems to be questionable for this thread! " Agree with everything. The debate is at what point in the scale someone becomes a leftie and not a centrist. We can all agree on what far left is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves. "That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ? Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agree with everything. The debate is at what point in the scale someone becomes a leftie and not a centrist. We can all agree on what far left is." Yes and I’d be keen to know at what point someone becomes a righty too! Basically how far up the scale both left and right do you go to set the boundaries of what constitutes a centrist? Because a centrist cannot be someone who is only positioned at 0! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ?
Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not?
"Agreed. I have been labelled a leftie on here (by righties only mind you) but here is my 2 pence… I do not see why it is “fair” that anyone pays a higher percentage of their income in tax than anyone else. Progressive tax bands are not “fair”. Surely if the aim is to alleviate financial pressure on the poorer in society then the best way to do that is to increase the tax free threshold (for all forms of income collected together) and make it universal (and no clawback - we all get it). Anything after that, salary, CGT, IHT etc is at a fixed rate for everyone. No loopholes. No tax credits or tax breaks. Just one simple number applicable to everything! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agree with everything. The debate is at what point in the scale someone becomes a leftie and not a centrist. We can all agree on what far left is. Yes and I’d be keen to know at what point someone becomes a righty too! Basically how far up the scale both left and right do you go to set the boundaries of what constitutes a centrist? Because a centrist cannot be someone who is only positioned at 0!" Yeah where the society draws the line depends a lot on the overton window. I personally go by why someone wants to nationalise something. IMO Centrists usually believe in free markets but ask for nationalising some sectors because they think these sectors are natural monopolies or openly admit that they are fine with a sector being inefficient if it's going to satisfy their moral values(like healthcare should be available for everyone) I call anyone who craps on the idea of free markets itself as a leftie. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ?
Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not?
"Do you mean the same percentage? If so, no. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Agree with everything. The debate is at what point in the scale someone becomes a leftie and not a centrist. We can all agree on what far left is. Yes and I’d be keen to know at what point someone becomes a righty too! Basically how far up the scale both left and right do you go to set the boundaries of what constitutes a centrist? Because a centrist cannot be someone who is only positioned at 0! Yeah where the society draws the line depends a lot on the overton window. I personally go by why someone wants to nationalise something. IMO Centrists usually believe in free markets but ask for nationalising some sectors because they think these sectors are natural monopolies or openly admit that they are fine with a sector being inefficient if it's going to satisfy their moral values(like healthcare should be available for everyone) I call anyone who craps on the idea of free markets itself as a leftie. " By that definition I am definitely a centrist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain." That’s interesting but surely that saying should be tempered by your own wealth? One reason people tend to become more small C conservative as they get older is they have more stuff and want to preserve the status quo that helped them accumulate that stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ?
Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not?
Do you mean the same percentage? If so, no."Why? Why is it “fair” that person A pays 20% tax but person B pays 20% on the first bit (technically second bit) and 40% on the next bit and 45% on the bit after that. Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. That’s interesting but surely that saying should be tempered by your own wealth? One reason people tend to become more small C conservative as they get older is they have more stuff and want to preserve the status quo that helped them accumulate that stuff." I think you’re a classic liberal rather than centrist, but that’s from here only | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. That’s interesting but surely that saying should be tempered by your own wealth? One reason people tend to become more small C conservative as they get older is they have more stuff and want to preserve the status quo that helped them accumulate that stuff. I think you’re a classic liberal rather than centrist, but that’s from here only "Interesting. Why do you say that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. That’s interesting but surely that saying should be tempered by your own wealth? One reason people tend to become more small C conservative as they get older is they have more stuff and want to preserve the status quo that helped them accumulate that stuff. I think you’re a classic liberal rather than centrist, but that’s from here only
Interesting. Why do you say that?"You have a mix of social and private views, that lean towards a more liberal outlook. Not full fat Conservative as you advocate change, and not a full fat Labour supporter as you want the government to leave some things alone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. That’s interesting but surely that saying should be tempered by your own wealth? One reason people tend to become more small C conservative as they get older is they have more stuff and want to preserve the status quo that helped them accumulate that stuff. I think you’re a classic liberal rather than centrist, but that’s from here only
Interesting. Why do you say that?
You have a mix of social and private views, that lean towards a more liberal outlook.
Not full fat Conservative as you advocate change, and not a full fat Labour supporter as you want the government to leave some things alone.
"Sounds right. But is that not a centrist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ?
Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not?
Do you mean the same percentage? If so, no.
Why? Why is it “fair” that person A pays 20% tax but person B pays 20% on the first bit (technically second bit) and 40% on the next bit and 45% on the bit after that. Why?"one needs to agree what fair means and how it is measured. In pure money terms, then an equal percentage is "fair". However in utility terms that is not fair. A 10k pay rise when you are on £20k pa means more than if you are on £1m pa. Higher personal allowances (linked to inflation) can help mitigate some of that I agree. And the utility runs off about 50k (from a well being POV). And I'd be supportive of moving tax from income to gains even if it was the same rate for all. So you have my vote there (depending on levels!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. That’s interesting but surely that saying should be tempered by your own wealth? One reason people tend to become more small C conservative as they get older is they have more stuff and want to preserve the status quo that helped them accumulate that stuff. I think you’re a classic liberal rather than centrist, but that’s from here only
Interesting. Why do you say that?
You have a mix of social and private views, that lean towards a more liberal outlook.
Not full fat Conservative as you advocate change, and not a full fat Labour supporter as you want the government to leave some things alone.
Sounds right. But is that not a centrist?"I see a “centrist” as not going to far, basically agreeing with the consensus only. Liberals or liberalism has a purpose of supporting a little more to the right on certain things and left on these, making it unique. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ?
Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not?
Do you mean the same percentage? If so, no.
Why? Why is it “fair” that person A pays 20% tax but person B pays 20% on the first bit (technically second bit) and 40% on the next bit and 45% on the bit after that. Why?one needs to agree what fair means and how it is measured.
In pure money terms, then an equal percentage is "fair".
However in utility terms that is not fair. A 10k pay rise when you are on £20k pa means more than if you are on £1m pa.
Higher personal allowances (linked to inflation) can help mitigate some of that I agree. And the utility runs off about 50k (from a well being POV).
And I'd be supportive of moving tax from income to gains even if it was the same rate for all. So you have my vote there (depending on levels!)
"What is "fair" is a highly subjective question. It depends on one's moral values which aren't objective. Some will say zero tax is fair because everyone gets to keep whatever they earned out of their work. Some will say all must pay the same amount irrespective of what they earn. Some will say all must pay same percentage. Some will say the tax percentage must be higher for rich people. There is no one answer we can all rationally agree upon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ?
Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not?
Do you mean the same percentage? If so, no.
Why? Why is it “fair” that person A pays 20% tax but person B pays 20% on the first bit (technically second bit) and 40% on the next bit and 45% on the bit after that. Why?"And in equal measure if you own a company or shares such as EMI shares you can pay 10% or indeed no tax . My original point was if you subsidise socialists via benefits ( something for nothing) then in equal measure you are subsidising capitalists with tax subsidies ( Again something for nothing). I don’t believe in punitive tax I believe in fair tax. I would push up the threshold to help lower income earners which in effect is what we do now via tax and child credits but over that whether it’s dividends or wages we all pay the same. If you earn more by default you’re better paid and keep more. I do have an idea which I haven’t stress tested around lifting peoples wages via a tax incentive for companies. So if a company pays the living wage for staff then they pay normal corporation tax. If they pay above this level then depending on bands then the company pays less corporation tax. The savings have to be re-invested not paid as bonus or dividends. . This could be scaled up to staff on say a £40k income after which there’s no incentive. This I feel would incentivise business to pay better wages in lower paid jobs whilst encouraging investment with the saved tax it would also be lifting people out of the ongoing requirement for state benefits. Happy to have this idea constructively criticised for workability and faults as it’s a thought in progress but not interested in the politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain." never heard that saying personaly, but I knocked up this poem to cheer you up The National Front in Barbour jackets I get money from Putin and other Rackets Vaudeville meets British Legion keen as mustard (Not the Djion!) a blight upon our rural regions. Frigg-orf Froggies! Bog-orf Boat people! Take EDL with crank the posh sect of nonsense, cult of tosh Get myself a bank account as coutes The BBC, Chanel 4 are all in Cahoots Gouty chaps in first class carriage now salute your saviour Nigel Farage! Traditional British values with verbal shits droning on about the Blitz the stoic wives in ration queues all gusto, guts and thrifty stews. And that, he says, is what we’ll lose if Reform gets it’s way much more Bring back inches! Bring back war! Polish Plumbers – there’s the door! Repatriate our ancient laws and let’s annul the all gay marriage! Morris dance for Nigel Farage. Who makes the likes of Sunak and Hunt seem worthy of a poll booth punt who headline grabs and makes debate about this fabled super-state then claims he gives it to us straight. And meanwhile, as this nonsense drones this cod-lament for tea and scones we’re drowning under pay-day loans with Tories picking at our bones. We must withstand this right-wing barrage we must ignore the likes of Farage. OH MA MILKSHAKE BRINGS ALL THE GAMMONS TO THE YARD! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ?
Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not?
Do you mean the same percentage? If so, no.
Why? Why is it “fair” that person A pays 20% tax but person B pays 20% on the first bit (technically second bit) and 40% on the next bit and 45% on the bit after that. Why?
And in equal measure if you own a company or shares such as EMI shares you can pay 10% or indeed no tax .
My original point was if you subsidise socialists via benefits ( something for nothing) then in equal measure you are subsidising capitalists with tax subsidies ( Again something for nothing).
I don’t believe in punitive tax I believe in fair tax.
I would push up the threshold to help lower income earners which in effect is what we do now via tax and child credits but over that whether it’s dividends or wages we all pay the same. If you earn more by default you’re better paid and keep more.
I do have an idea which I haven’t stress tested around lifting peoples wages via a tax incentive for companies.
So if a company pays the living wage for staff then they pay normal corporation tax. If they pay above this level then depending on bands then the company pays less corporation tax. The savings have to be re-invested not paid as bonus or dividends. . This could be scaled up to staff on say a £40k income after which there’s no incentive.
This I feel would incentivise business to pay better wages in lower paid jobs whilst encouraging investment with the saved tax it would also be lifting people out of the ongoing requirement for state benefits.
Happy to have this idea constructively criticised for workability and faults as it’s a thought in progress but not interested in the politics. "it's a neat idea. It probably benefits some industries more than others (depending on who they employ) and may incentives others to outsource. But as concept I like it. Is there any way of knowing today if a company pays above living wage ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. never heard that saying personaly, but I knocked up this poem to cheer you up The National Front in Barbour jackets I get money from Putin and other Rackets Vaudeville meets British Legion keen as mustard (Not the Djion!) a blight upon our rural regions. Frigg-orf Froggies! Bog-orf Boat people! Take EDL with crank the posh sect of nonsense, cult of tosh Get myself a bank account as coutes The BBC, Chanel 4 are all in Cahoots Gouty chaps in first class carriage now salute your saviour Nigel Farage! Traditional British values with verbal shits droning on about the Blitz the stoic wives in ration queues all gusto, guts and thrifty stews. And that, he says, is what we’ll lose if Reform gets it’s way much more Bring back inches! Bring back war! Polish Plumbers – there’s the door! Repatriate our ancient laws and let’s annul the all gay marriage! Morris dance for Nigel Farage. Who makes the likes of Sunak and Hunt seem worthy of a poll booth punt who headline grabs and makes debate about this fabled super-state then claims he gives it to us straight. And meanwhile, as this nonsense drones this cod-lament for tea and scones we’re drowning under pay-day loans with Tories picking at our bones. We must withstand this right-wing barrage we must ignore the likes of Farage. OH MA MILKSHAKE BRINGS ALL THE GAMMONS TO THE YARD! " You know his name isn't Fa'ridge lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. never heard that saying personaly, but I knocked up this poem to cheer you up The National Front in Barbour jackets I get money from Putin and other Rackets Vaudeville meets British Legion keen as mustard (Not the Djion!) a blight upon our rural regions. Frigg-orf Froggies! Bog-orf Boat people! Take EDL with crank the posh sect of nonsense, cult of tosh Get myself a bank account as coutes The BBC, Chanel 4 are all in Cahoots Gouty chaps in first class carriage now salute your saviour Nigel Farage! Traditional British values with verbal shits droning on about the Blitz the stoic wives in ration queues all gusto, guts and thrifty stews. And that, he says, is what we’ll lose if Reform gets it’s way much more Bring back inches! Bring back war! Polish Plumbers – there’s the door! Repatriate our ancient laws and let’s annul the all gay marriage! Morris dance for Nigel Farage. Who makes the likes of Sunak and Hunt seem worthy of a poll booth punt who headline grabs and makes debate about this fabled super-state then claims he gives it to us straight. And meanwhile, as this nonsense drones this cod-lament for tea and scones we’re drowning under pay-day loans with Tories picking at our bones. We must withstand this right-wing barrage we must ignore the likes of Farage. OH MA MILKSHAKE BRINGS ALL THE GAMMONS TO THE YARD! " I was hoping for something less, silly… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. never heard that saying personaly, but I knocked up this poem to cheer you up The National Front in Barbour jackets I get money from Putin and other Rackets Vaudeville meets British Legion keen as mustard (Not the Djion!) a blight upon our rural regions. Frigg-orf Froggies! Bog-orf Boat people! Take EDL with crank the posh sect of nonsense, cult of tosh Get myself a bank account as coutes The BBC, Chanel 4 are all in Cahoots Gouty chaps in first class carriage now salute your saviour Nigel Farage! Traditional British values with verbal shits droning on about the Blitz the stoic wives in ration queues all gusto, guts and thrifty stews. And that, he says, is what we’ll lose if Reform gets it’s way much more Bring back inches! Bring back war! Polish Plumbers – there’s the door! Repatriate our ancient laws and let’s annul the all gay marriage! Morris dance for Nigel Farage. Who makes the likes of Sunak and Hunt seem worthy of a poll booth punt who headline grabs and makes debate about this fabled super-state then claims he gives it to us straight. And meanwhile, as this nonsense drones this cod-lament for tea and scones we’re drowning under pay-day loans with Tories picking at our bones. We must withstand this right-wing barrage we must ignore the likes of Farage. OH MA MILKSHAKE BRINGS ALL THE GAMMONS TO THE YARD! You know his name isn't Fa'ridge lol" But he might shop at Claridges.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ?
Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not?
Do you mean the same percentage? If so, no.
Why? Why is it “fair” that person A pays 20% tax but person B pays 20% on the first bit (technically second bit) and 40% on the next bit and 45% on the bit after that. Why?"The burden isn't the same if people don't have enough to live on. So you change the tax threshold. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s quite simple, the left care about people, the right care about themselves. Thank you for attending my TED Talk." The left "say" they care about people and try to force other people to do things which they won't themselves. The right either care or don't care about people. But if they care, they do something about it themselves instead of expecting others to do something. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s quite simple, the left care about people, the right care about themselves. Thank you for attending my TED Talk. The left "say" they care about people and try to force other people to do things which they won't themselves. The right either care or don't care about people. But if they care, they do something about it themselves instead of expecting others to do something. Thanks for coming to my TED talk." Boris is a lefty then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. That’s interesting but surely that saying should be tempered by your own wealth? One reason people tend to become more small C conservative as they get older is they have more stuff and want to preserve the status quo that helped them accumulate that stuff. I think you’re a classic liberal rather than centrist, but that’s from here only
Interesting. Why do you say that?
You have a mix of social and private views, that lean towards a more liberal outlook.
Not full fat Conservative as you advocate change, and not a full fat Labour supporter as you want the government to leave some things alone.
Sounds right. But is that not a centrist?
I see a “centrist” as not going to far, basically agreeing with the consensus only.
Liberals or liberalism has a purpose of supporting a little more to the right on certain things and left on these, making it unique."Ok well by that measure I am Liberal Centrist I think? At least you get me (on here). I always chuckle at being called a leftie (as you say on some issues maybe I am) but those same people never call me a righty (on some issues maybe I am). I think the lack of binary black & white approach is a mysterious conundrum to some on here! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In UK politics, a "leftie" typically refers to an individual or a politician who holds left-wing or progressive views. These views often emphasize social equality, public ownership, and government intervention in the economy to ensure fair distribution of resources and opportunities. Key characteristics of a leftie in UK politics may include: Meaning that they want for free what they haven't earned themselves.
That could equally be applied to wanting tax breaks for the rich which they have not earned. Unless you can earn a tax break ?
Fair distribution would mean equal burden of tax by percentage would it not?
Do you mean the same percentage? If so, no.
Why? Why is it “fair” that person A pays 20% tax but person B pays 20% on the first bit (technically second bit) and 40% on the next bit and 45% on the bit after that. Why?
And in equal measure if you own a company or shares such as EMI shares you can pay 10% or indeed no tax .
My original point was if you subsidise socialists via benefits ( something for nothing) then in equal measure you are subsidising capitalists with tax subsidies ( Again something for nothing).
I don’t believe in punitive tax I believe in fair tax.
I would push up the threshold to help lower income earners which in effect is what we do now via tax and child credits but over that whether it’s dividends or wages we all pay the same. If you earn more by default you’re better paid and keep more.
I do have an idea which I haven’t stress tested around lifting peoples wages via a tax incentive for companies.
So if a company pays the living wage for staff then they pay normal corporation tax. If they pay above this level then depending on bands then the company pays less corporation tax. The savings have to be re-invested not paid as bonus or dividends. . This could be scaled up to staff on say a £40k income after which there’s no incentive.
This I feel would incentivise business to pay better wages in lower paid jobs whilst encouraging investment with the saved tax it would also be lifting people out of the ongoing requirement for state benefits.
Happy to have this idea constructively criticised for workability and faults as it’s a thought in progress but not interested in the politics. it's a neat idea. It probably benefits some industries more than others (depending on who they employ) and may incentives others to outsource. But as concept I like it.
Is there any way of knowing today if a company pays above living wage ? "I don’t know how they do it but recently weren’t companies outed for paying less so there must be a way. I just think as an idea it benefits the low paid and the company in a positive not punitive way to either party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone
You're going leftie again. Attacking a right winger whilst defending the left winger
This was all started by 'this is a good example' by a prominent leftie.
Give me a chance to type. I pulled up EVERYONE for deviating from the topic.
We were actually having an interesting (I think) discussion on actual and perceived differences. Be nice to continue before we hit 174 as some great posts in here.
You 'pulled everyone up' in a single text, then you misquoted Johnny to make his stance more palatable.
We see you
Huh? Not intentional. I didn’t misquote, I tried to open out the discussion with what I think is a valid question. So let’s get back to that…
Why does it appear that it is generally more right leaning people who are sceptical of climate change? What drives that?
"To pull back out and reiterate your point…
Right Wing = generally sceptical on climate change. Why? What drives this scepticism?"
Johnny's point is never that Right Wing = 'generally sceptical'. His point is always Right Wing = science deniers.
That's a misquote if ever there was one.
The reason it appears right wingers are more generally sceptical on climate change is your own views. They really aren't, they just question why we put so much onus on what we can do and feel the Govt have pushed too far, too quickly.
I have asked if it's only right wingers who feel this way but as yet, no answers.
Oh Feisty you and your semantics arguments. I don’t want to play. That was not a misquote. It was reframing the question to drive a more general discussion. And oh look. It worked! Even you answered!!
You make an interesting point but my own observations (not just on here) are that it appears that climate change scepticism is definitely more prevalent in people holding right wing views. There is definitely a venn diagram of overlapping views that generally (note that word) define someone as right wing and climate change scepticism is part of that."Refrigerator, fancy word for misquote. Call it what you want, you done it and it doesn't represent Johnny's view, not even close. As I said already, you're going leftie again. Anyway, you said your own observations. I said depending on your own views. I'm sure we can conclude there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone
You're going leftie again. Attacking a right winger whilst defending the left winger
This was all started by 'this is a good example' by a prominent leftie.
Give me a chance to type. I pulled up EVERYONE for deviating from the topic.
We were actually having an interesting (I think) discussion on actual and perceived differences. Be nice to continue before we hit 174 as some great posts in here.
You 'pulled everyone up' in a single text, then you misquoted Johnny to make his stance more palatable.
We see you
Huh? Not intentional. I didn’t misquote, I tried to open out the discussion with what I think is a valid question. So let’s get back to that…
Why does it appear that it is generally more right leaning people who are sceptical of climate change? What drives that?
"To pull back out and reiterate your point…
Right Wing = generally sceptical on climate change. Why? What drives this scepticism?"
Johnny's point is never that Right Wing = 'generally sceptical'. His point is always Right Wing = science deniers.
That's a misquote if ever there was one.
The reason it appears right wingers are more generally sceptical on climate change is your own views. They really aren't, they just question why we put so much onus on what we can do and feel the Govt have pushed too far, too quickly.
I have asked if it's only right wingers who feel this way but as yet, no answers.
Oh Feisty you and your semantics arguments. I don’t want to play. That was not a misquote. It was reframing the question to drive a more general discussion. And oh look. It worked! Even you answered!!
You make an interesting point but my own observations (not just on here) are that it appears that climate change scepticism is definitely more prevalent in people holding right wing views. There is definitely a venn diagram of overlapping views that generally (note that word) define someone as right wing and climate change scepticism is part of that.
Refrigerator, fancy word for misquote.
Call it what you want, you done it and it doesn't represent Johnny's view, not even close.
As I said already, you're going leftie again.
Anyway, you said your own observations. I said depending on your own views. I'm sure we can conclude there. "I said I wasn’t going to play the semantics game but an autocorrect from reframe to refrigerator was too funny to ignore. You aren’t having a good day Feisty old chap. If you don’t understand the difference between reframing a question and misquoting then it’s a good job you don’t work in an industry reliant on words
It’s all academic anyway as the discussion continued in an interesting and informative way with only you seeming to continue to want to score points rather than engage directly with the topic. ONLY YOU! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An old saying: If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you grow up, you have no brain. That’s interesting but surely that saying should be tempered by your own wealth? One reason people tend to become more small C conservative as they get older is they have more stuff and want to preserve the status quo that helped them accumulate that stuff. I think you’re a classic liberal rather than centrist, but that’s from here only
Interesting. Why do you say that?
You have a mix of social and private views, that lean towards a more liberal outlook.
Not full fat Conservative as you advocate change, and not a full fat Labour supporter as you want the government to leave some things alone.
Sounds right. But is that not a centrist?
I see a “centrist” as not going to far, basically agreeing with the consensus only.
Liberals or liberalism has a purpose of supporting a little more to the right on certain things and left on these, making it unique.
Ok well by that measure I am Liberal Centrist I think?
At least you get me (on here). I always chuckle at being called a leftie (as you say on some issues maybe I am) but those same people never call me a righty (on some issues maybe I am). I think the lack of binary black & white approach is a mysterious conundrum to some on here!"Acknowledging people are diverse is rather lacking. Like Brexit is right wing . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread also shows why people ridicule leftists. They have this belief that they are intellectually and morally superior to the rest but it can be clearly seen that they are neither. Yet they go on spouting BS about others Or you could just stay on topic and engage without attacking anyone
You're going leftie again. Attacking a right winger whilst defending the left winger
This was all started by 'this is a good example' by a prominent leftie.
Give me a chance to type. I pulled up EVERYONE for deviating from the topic.
We were actually having an interesting (I think) discussion on actual and perceived differences. Be nice to continue before we hit 174 as some great posts in here.
You 'pulled everyone up' in a single text, then you misquoted Johnny to make his stance more palatable.
We see you
Huh? Not intentional. I didn’t misquote, I tried to open out the discussion with what I think is a valid question. So let’s get back to that…
Why does it appear that it is generally more right leaning people who are sceptical of climate change? What drives that?
"To pull back out and reiterate your point…
Right Wing = generally sceptical on climate change. Why? What drives this scepticism?"
Johnny's point is never that Right Wing = 'generally sceptical'. His point is always Right Wing = science deniers.
That's a misquote if ever there was one.
The reason it appears right wingers are more generally sceptical on climate change is your own views. They really aren't, they just question why we put so much onus on what we can do and feel the Govt have pushed too far, too quickly.
I have asked if it's only right wingers who feel this way but as yet, no answers.
Oh Feisty you and your semantics arguments. I don’t want to play. That was not a misquote. It was reframing the question to drive a more general discussion. And oh look. It worked! Even you answered!!
You make an interesting point but my own observations (not just on here) are that it appears that climate change scepticism is definitely more prevalent in people holding right wing views. There is definitely a venn diagram of overlapping views that generally (note that word) define someone as right wing and climate change scepticism is part of that.
Refrigerator, fancy word for misquote.
Call it what you want, you done it and it doesn't represent Johnny's view, not even close.
As I said already, you're going leftie again.
Anyway, you said your own observations. I said depending on your own views. I'm sure we can conclude there.
I said I wasn’t going to play the semantics game but an autocorrect from reframe to refrigerator was too funny to ignore.
You aren’t having a good day Feisty old chap. If you don’t understand the difference between reframing a question and misquoting then it’s a good job you don’t work in an industry reliant on words
It’s all academic anyway as the discussion continued in an interesting and informative way with only you seeming to continue to want to score points rather than engage directly with the topic. ONLY YOU!"That's the whole fucking point. You'll 'call out' people who you think are 'right wing' but 'reframe' Johnny's word (without calling him out), yet he does not much else than try to score points. Now your moaning about being called a leftie, you're never called a leftie, you sometimes go leftie, as you've done on this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
