FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A JOE CONSERVATIVE
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A JOE CONSERVATIVE
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his kettle with water to prepare his morning tea/coffee. The water is clean and good, because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take, because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat, because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents, because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean, because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. Joe drives to work in a safe regulated car because meddling liberals fought for more safety features and standards. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, pension, paternity leave, paid holidays and sick pay because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe hurts himself at work and an ambulance takes him to A&E. He receives free at the point of use treatment thanks to bloody liberal socialists who formed the NHS. Joe gets home and relaxes by turning on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that his beloved Conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." Joe is blissful in his ignorance... The End. Any of our right wing cohort like to correct the picture above? " I'm sorry but this is all too subtle for the alt-reich to understand. They simply can't see anything wrong with your rationale. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I didn't realise unions were liberal" According to the alt-right they probably are. Improving working conditions are seen by them as something that whinging lefties do. | |||
| |||
"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his kettle with water to prepare his morning tea/coffee. The water is clean and good, because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take, because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat, because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents, because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean, because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. Joe drives to work in a safe regulated car because meddling liberals fought for more safety features and standards. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, pension, paternity leave, paid holidays and sick pay because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe hurts himself at work and an ambulance takes him to A&E. He receives free at the point of use treatment thanks to bloody liberal socialists who formed the NHS. Joe gets home and relaxes by turning on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that his beloved Conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." Joe is blissful in his ignorance... The End. Any of our right wing cohort like to correct the picture above? " love to knock this but can't as it's clever and funny  and I'm on the Right  | |||
 | |||
" love to knock this but can't as it's clever and funny and I'm on the Right "Can you explain to me what is funny about pointing out the truth of life for the majority and having a right wing working Joe say he cant find fault with any part of what is said and then say "it's clever and funny and I'm on the Right ".
To me it is sad that anyone can be so conditioned that they see their conditioned repression and rejoice in rejecting a chance to escape...
That sounds like classic Stockholm syndrome to me. | |||
| |||
"A good piece! Sometimes it feels like all the right have to offer is 'don't do that thing that you think will improve lives, everything is fine as it is, just let people do business with zero regulations and everything will be fine' " Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. | |||
"A good piece! Sometimes it feels like all the right have to offer is 'don't do that thing that you think will improve lives, everything is fine as it is, just let people do business with zero regulations and everything will be fine' Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. " Well, you stated my opinion back to me. Thanks, I guess. | |||
"Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. " Name a single piece of unnecessary regulation and I will find you the reason that regulation was introduced! further the idea that today is different to the time when we needed regulations has been proved false over and over again. When regulations have been relaxed and withdrawn business has over time returned to the practices that eventually forced pro business politicians to introduce regulations in the first place. A prime example being the deregulation of private rented accommodation and rents charged by landlords and the return of slumlords who charge exorbitant rents for accommodation that is unfit for human habitation and evict anyone who complains, just like their Dickensian forefathers, or the likes of Union Carbide who when forced to stop poisoning US and Europeans relocated to India and poisoned Indians (Bhopal) rather than clean up their act! | |||
"A good piece! Sometimes it feels like all the right have to offer is 'don't do that thing that you think will improve lives, everything is fine as it is, just let people do business with zero regulations and everything will be fine' Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. " Have you ever genuinely thought "I wish the nuclear industry was less regulated" | |||
| |||
"I'd prefer it if thier wasn't a nuclear industry ! If ever something should never have been invented this is the one ! How can something that can be made into the worlds most powerful weapon ever be truly safe ! " But there IS a nuclear industry. Do you want it to be more safe, less safe, or stay the same? | |||
"I'd prefer it if thier wasn't a nuclear industry ! If ever something should never have been invented this is the one ! How can something that can be made into the worlds most powerful weapon ever be truly safe ! But there IS a nuclear industry. Do you want it to be more safe, less safe, or stay the same? " In Britain more safe, in France less safe | |||
" How can something that can be made into the worlds most powerful weapon ever be truly safe ! " ...hrmm.... that is a pretty simplistic view though isn't it? I mean, taking that view to the extreme you could say why are we aiming for tidal and hydro power when floods kill so many people? Whilst I think some of the plans for nuclear power seem absurd at the moment, and I don't agree with nuclear proliferation... I don't think we can shy away from using tools and technology to our benefit just because they could be used for harm.... I mean, the Mars Rover is nuclear powered... -Matt | |||
"I'd prefer it if thier wasn't a nuclear industry ! If ever something should never have been invented this is the one ! How can something that can be made into the worlds most powerful weapon ever be truly safe ! But there IS a nuclear industry. Do you want it to be more safe, less safe, or stay the same? " if I'm really honest I'd prefer it if thier wasn't one ! At least not for power . I realise we can't get or won't ever get rid of the weapons but I'm sure thier will be a huge accident one day that will make Chernobyl look like a tea party  | |||
" How can something that can be made into the worlds most powerful weapon ever be truly safe ! ...hrmm.... that is a pretty simplistic view though isn't it? I mean, taking that view to the extreme you could say why are we aiming for tidal and hydro power when floods kill so many people? Whilst I think some of the plans for nuclear power seem absurd at the moment, and I don't agree with nuclear proliferation... I don't think we can shy away from using tools and technology to our benefit just because they could be used for harm.... I mean, the Mars Rover is nuclear powered... -Matt" How many people have been killed by nuclear power, both civilian power generation and weaponised usage compared to drownings? | |||
"I'd prefer it if thier wasn't a nuclear industry ! If ever something should never have been invented this is the one ! How can something that can be made into the worlds most powerful weapon ever be truly safe ! But there IS a nuclear industry. Do you want it to be more safe, less safe, or stay the same? if I'm really honest I'd prefer it if thier wasn't one ! At least not for power . I realise we can't get or won't ever get rid of the weapons but I'm sure thier will be a huge accident one day that will make Chernobyl look like a tea party "But we currently have nuclear civilian power generation, you cant just wish it away and pretend we dont. Do you like accidents like Chernobyl are more likely to happen if we have more regulation or less regulation? | |||
"I'd prefer it if thier wasn't a nuclear industry ! If ever something should never have been invented this is the one ! How can something that can be made into the worlds most powerful weapon ever be truly safe ! But there IS a nuclear industry. Do you want it to be more safe, less safe, or stay the same? if I'm really honest I'd prefer it if thier wasn't one ! At least not for power . I realise we can't get or won't ever get rid of the weapons but I'm sure thier will be a huge accident one day that will make Chernobyl look like a tea party
But we currently have nuclear civilian power generation, you cant just wish it away and pretend we dont. Do you like accidents like Chernobyl are more likely to happen if we have more regulation or less regulation?"Obviously more safety and regulation the better in this case , I realise Nuckear won't go away it's a wish not a reality ! But if I had a magic wand it would go | |||
"I'd prefer it if thier wasn't a nuclear industry ! If ever something should never have been invented this is the one ! How can something that can be made into the worlds most powerful weapon ever be truly safe ! But there IS a nuclear industry. Do you want it to be more safe, less safe, or stay the same? In Britain more safe, in France less safe Bit of an odd comment to make. Do you have a problem with the French by chance? You do realise that fallout does not recognize national boundaries. " | |||
"if I'm really honest I'd prefer it if thier wasn't one ! At least not for power . I realise we can't get or won't ever get rid of the weapons but I'm sure thier will be a huge accident one day that will make Chernobyl look like a tea party "So what would you rather? In reality renewable s are not advanced enough to replace nuclear at present so that leaves hydrocarbons... How many have been killed by hydrocarbons? Lets forget those killed by pollution because you can always argue about exactly which pollution is responsible for which deaths. What we can say is that coal is used to generate heat and power, how many have died from extracting? I don't know, but I bet it is more than have died from civilian use of fissile materials. | |||
"if I'm really honest I'd prefer it if thier wasn't one ! At least not for power . I realise we can't get or won't ever get rid of the weapons but I'm sure thier will be a huge accident one day that will make Chernobyl look like a tea party
So what would you rather? In reality renewable s are not advanced enough to replace nuclear at present so that leaves hydrocarbons...
How many have been killed by hydrocarbons? Lets forget those killed by pollution because you can always argue about exactly which pollution is responsible for which deaths. What we can say is that coal is used to generate heat and power, how many have died from extracting? I don't know, but I bet it is more than have died from civilian use of fissile materials."I haven't got the answer ! I wish I had . Like I said earlier it's s wish but sadly unlikely to come true | |||
"I'd prefer it if thier wasn't a nuclear industry ! If ever something should never have been invented this is the one ! How can something that can be made into the worlds most powerful weapon ever be truly safe ! But there IS a nuclear industry. Do you want it to be more safe, less safe, or stay the same? In Britain more safe, in France less safe Bit of an odd comment to make. Do you have a problem with the French by chance? You do realise that fallout does not recognize national boundaries. "You do recognise when someone us being serious don't you? But just in case wind generally blows East to West so your point being what exactly  | |||
"A good piece! Sometimes it feels like all the right have to offer is 'don't do that thing that you think will improve lives, everything is fine as it is, just let people do business with zero regulations and everything will be fine' Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. " I agree bring back child labour as they are cheep and can turn a profit esp if you need your chimney cleaned. There is a fortune to be made from constructing poor houses for the unemployed to go to rather than sit on their lazy arses !!! After all what do we need expensive legislation for ?? We have plenty of unemployed so a few dying on the job can be easily replaced !!!! | |||
"A good piece! Sometimes it feels like all the right have to offer is 'don't do that thing that you think will improve lives, everything is fine as it is, just let people do business with zero regulations and everything will be fine' Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. I agree bring back child labour as they are cheep and can turn a profit esp if you need your chimney cleaned. There is a fortune to be made from constructing poor houses for the unemployed to go to rather than sit on their lazy arses !!! After all what do we need expensive legislation for ?? We have plenty of unemployed so a few dying on the job can be easily replaced !!!!" India and China have already stolen this Policy ! | |||
"I wish I had . Like I said earlier it's s wish but sadly unlikely to come true "Well, I was not quite honest when I said I didn't know the numbers... Last time I checked (about 10 years ago) the total number who have died due to fissile material since its discovery is estimated to be less than 2.5 million (that includes the bombs). however over 100,000 coal miners have been killed in pits and at least a further 25,000 have died of Coalworker's pneumoconiosis in the UK since 1900. Of course things like the Aberfan disaster and deaths in coal power stations need to be added to the numbers above while the 2.5 million number includes deaths from radiation related cancers. I leave it to you to guess at the world figures for coal extraction deaths are. But it is my belief that they make those caused by nuclear energy look positively insignificant. | |||
"A good piece! Sometimes it feels like all the right have to offer is 'don't do that thing that you think will improve lives, everything is fine as it is, just let people do business with zero regulations and everything will be fine' Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. I agree bring back child labour as they are cheep and can turn a profit esp if you need your chimney cleaned. There is a fortune to be made from constructing poor houses for the unemployed to go to rather than sit on their lazy arses !!! After all what do we need expensive legislation for ?? We have plenty of unemployed so a few dying on the job can be easily replaced !!!!" Good idea  I work for one of the largest contractors and my job is quite simply to create profit. I've been recommending this for years. Glad I'm not the only one | |||
"A good piece! Sometimes it feels like all the right have to offer is 'don't do that thing that you think will improve lives, everything is fine as it is, just let people do business with zero regulations and everything will be fine' Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. I agree bring back child labour as they are cheep and can turn a profit esp if you need your chimney cleaned. There is a fortune to be made from constructing poor houses for the unemployed to go to rather than sit on their lazy arses !!! After all what do we need expensive legislation for ?? We have plenty of unemployed so a few dying on the job can be easily replaced !!!! Good idea I work for one of the largest contractors and my job is quite simply to create profit. I've been recommending this for years. Glad I'm not the only one "Is it a Quatar company | |||
| |||
"A good piece! Sometimes it feels like all the right have to offer is 'don't do that thing that you think will improve lives, everything is fine as it is, just let people do business with zero regulations and everything will be fine' Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. I agree bring back child labour as they are cheep and can turn a profit esp if you need your chimney cleaned. There is a fortune to be made from constructing poor houses for the unemployed to go to rather than sit on their lazy arses !!! After all what do we need expensive legislation for ?? We have plenty of unemployed so a few dying on the job can be easily replaced !!!! Good idea I work for one of the largest contractors and my job is quite simply to create profit. I've been recommending this for years. Glad I'm not the only one
Is it a Quatar company "No, although I did turn down a position out there on one of the new stadiums for an extra £50k/ annum plus free return flights 6 times a year, but turned it down  | |||
"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his kettle with water to prepare his morning tea/coffee. The water is clean and good, because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take, because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat, because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents, because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean, because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. Joe drives to work in a safe regulated car because meddling liberals fought for more safety features and standards. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, pension, paternity leave, paid holidays and sick pay because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe hurts himself at work and an ambulance takes him to A&E. He receives free at the point of use treatment thanks to bloody liberal socialists who formed the NHS. Joe gets home and relaxes by turning on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that his beloved Conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." Joe is blissful in his ignorance... The End. Any of our right wing cohort like to correct the picture above? " | |||
"A good piece! Sometimes it feels like all the right have to offer is 'don't do that thing that you think will improve lives, everything is fine as it is, just let people do business with zero regulations and everything will be fine' Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. " I'm glad the Right are finally owning the banking crisis of 2008 and all the problems we still have. | |||
"Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. " I am still waiting for you to name a single unnecessary regulation Centaur... 9 hours since my reply to your post and counting... | |||
| |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? " I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit." How would his day differ to Joe the Labour voter? | |||
" How would his day differ to Joe the Labour voter? " If enough Joe's voted Labour (not 'new labour' which was Tory light) then his children would be guaranteed free tuition until they reached their educational potential and full or partial state support while in full time education depending on Joe's income, he would also have the opportunity to improve himself free of charge (depending on his income) and funded by the state at the OU. He would have full access to the legal system and would not be required to pay for access to an industrial tribunal if his employer broke the law. He would not see his taxes going to subsidise foreign countries rail and power network. He would not see our health service being privatised by the back door so that Richard Branson can buy another tropical island. Is that enough to be going on with? | |||
" How would his day differ to Joe the Labour voter? If enough Joe's voted Labour (not 'new labour' which was Tory light) then his children would be guaranteed free tuition until they reached their educational potential and full or partial state support while in full time education depending on Joe's income, he would also have the opportunity to improve himself free of charge (depending on his income) and funded by the state at the OU. He would have full access to the legal system and would not be required to pay for access to an industrial tribunal if his employer broke the law. He would not see his taxes going to subsidise foreign countries rail and power network. He would not see our health service being privatised by the back door so that Richard Branson can buy another tropical island. Is that enough to be going on with?" Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. | |||
| |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. " Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries?" Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis | |||
" How would his day differ to Joe the Labour voter? If enough Joe's voted Labour (not 'new labour' which was Tory light) then his children would be guaranteed free tuition until they reached their educational potential and full or partial state support while in full time education depending on Joe's income, he would also have the opportunity to improve himself free of charge (depending on his income) and funded by the state at the OU. He would have full access to the legal system and would not be required to pay for access to an industrial tribunal if his employer broke the law. He would not see his taxes going to subsidise foreign countries rail and power network. He would not see our health service being privatised by the back door so that Richard Branson can buy another tropical island. Is that enough to be going on with?" Would he bollocks | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit." Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine. | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis" Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! " Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother | |||
"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his kettle with water to prepare his morning tea/coffee. The water is clean and good, because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take, because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat, because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents, because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean, because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. Joe drives to work in a safe regulated car because meddling liberals fought for more safety features and standards. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, pension, paternity leave, paid holidays and sick pay because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe hurts himself at work and an ambulance takes him to A&E. He receives free at the point of use treatment thanks to bloody liberal socialists who formed the NHS. Joe gets home and relaxes by turning on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that his beloved Conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." Joe is blissful in his ignorance... The End. Any of our right wing cohort like to correct the picture above? " your Joe sounds just like me, except this Joe is comfortably retired age of 50,them liberal chappies looked after me well, or was it a North American oil corporation
thumbs up them liberal chappies | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! " lol you know how you once said to me why don't I vote Labour ?
Your talking such sense now I've decided you should Join the Mr Siut Party | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine." All of them work for a capitalist organisation? I'm sure that some people don't. Are you saying that a product, any product can only be the result of a capitalist system? | |||
| |||
"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his kettle with water to prepare his morning tea/coffee. The water is clean and good, because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take, because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat, because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents, because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean, because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. Joe drives to work in a safe regulated car because meddling liberals fought for more safety features and standards. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, pension, paternity leave, paid holidays and sick pay because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe hurts himself at work and an ambulance takes him to A&E. He receives free at the point of use treatment thanks to bloody liberal socialists who formed the NHS. Joe gets home and relaxes by turning on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that his beloved Conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." Joe is blissful in his ignorance... The End. Any of our right wing cohort like to correct the picture above? your Joe sounds just like me, except this Joe is comfortably retired age of 50,them liberal chappies looked after me well, or was it a North American oil corporation
thumbs up them liberal chappies "What's your definition of liberal? | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother "Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me. | |||
| |||
"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his kettle with water to prepare his morning tea/coffee. The water is clean and good, because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take, because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat, because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents, because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean, because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. Joe drives to work in a safe regulated car because meddling liberals fought for more safety features and standards. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, pension, paternity leave, paid holidays and sick pay because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe hurts himself at work and an ambulance takes him to A&E. He receives free at the point of use treatment thanks to bloody liberal socialists who formed the NHS. Joe gets home and relaxes by turning on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that his beloved Conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." Joe is blissful in his ignorance... The End. The NHS isn't free that's an absolute falsity it's paid for out of tax revenues, taken from the workers and businesses based in the U.K. Clean water was started by Victorian industrialists as they were fed up of getting ill Any of our right wing cohort like to correct the picture above? " | |||
"At last....OP. You have posted something amusing rather than gloomy. You haven't named any of these "liberal lefties" so leaving it rather vague. I'm not gonna bother going through your list but could start with a couple of corrections in terms of clean water. Sir John Harrington (godson of Queen Elizabeth first) invented the flushing toilet. James Simpson....third generation chairman of Chelsea Water Company and President of the Royal society developed the first treated (clean) water supply. Neither of these esteemed gentlemen would wish to be called liberal or leftie...." . | |||
"I think this post illustrates very nicely the difference between conservatives and the mental left. And not just conservatives but people like myself, Labour voting trade union members and the mental left. "
And it's the mental left that have now well and truly ensured that labour will not be in power for at least another 10 years Yippeee | |||
| |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me. "All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote. Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it. | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine. All of them work for a capitalist organisation? I'm sure that some people don't. Are you saying that a product, any product can only be the result of a capitalist system? " Yes, 99.99999999 % of the time. Give me a product that isn't. | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it. ". | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine. All of them work for a capitalist organisation? I'm sure that some people don't. Are you saying that a product, any product can only be the result of a capitalist system? Yes, 99.99999999 % of the time. Give me a product that isn't." I can think of literally hundreds of products that pre-date capitalism. Ergo, they don't have to be a product of a capitalist system. | |||
" How would his day differ to Joe the Labour voter? If enough Joe's voted Labour (not 'new labour' which was Tory light) then his children would be guaranteed free tuition until they reached their educational potential and full or partial state support while in full time education depending on Joe's income, he would also have the opportunity to improve himself free of charge (depending on his income) and funded by the state at the OU. He would have full access to the legal system and would not be required to pay for access to an industrial tribunal if his employer broke the law. He would not see his taxes going to subsidise foreign countries rail and power network. He would not see our health service being privatised by the back door so that Richard Branson can buy another tropical island. Is that enough to be going on with?" And where does all of this free money come from, is it the magical socialist free money tree that couldn't feed the communists in the mighty USSR. That need intervention and food from the capitalist west so that they could have bread on the shelves Or may be is it's oil rich Venezuela which can't feed or power its own country, but at least they have good old socialist values | |||
| |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine. All of them work for a capitalist organisation? I'm sure that some people don't. Are you saying that a product, any product can only be the result of a capitalist system? Yes, 99.99999999 % of the time. Give me a product that isn't. I can think of literally hundreds of products that pre-date capitalism. Ergo, they don't have to be a product of a capitalist system. " But can you name them. | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine. All of them work for a capitalist organisation? I'm sure that some people don't. Are you saying that a product, any product can only be the result of a capitalist system? Yes, 99.99999999 % of the time. Give me a product that isn't. I can think of literally hundreds of products that pre-date capitalism. Ergo, they don't have to be a product of a capitalist system. " Care to name some...? Other than the many green beans in my local green Grocers? | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine. All of them work for a capitalist organisation? I'm sure that some people don't. Are you saying that a product, any product can only be the result of a capitalist system? Yes, 99.99999999 % of the time. Give me a product that isn't. I can think of literally hundreds of products that pre-date capitalism. Ergo, they don't have to be a product of a capitalist system. But can you name them. " They wont be able to because somewhere along the line there will be part of the production or distribution that wouldn't be possible without a large capitalist organisation. There is only 1 possible exception I can think of but that is a community in America. | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine. All of them work for a capitalist organisation? I'm sure that some people don't. Are you saying that a product, any product can only be the result of a capitalist system? Yes, 99.99999999 % of the time. Give me a product that isn't. I can think of literally hundreds of products that pre-date capitalism. Ergo, they don't have to be a product of a capitalist system. Care to name some...? Other than the many green beans in my local green Grocers?" Even they will have been subject to capitalism. Unless planted and picked completely by hand, and transported direct to the grocers by foot, by someome wearing home made clothes from fabric they made themselves by hand, and the grocer can't use electricity in his shop. | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine. All of them work for a capitalist organisation? I'm sure that some people don't. Are you saying that a product, any product can only be the result of a capitalist system? Yes, 99.99999999 % of the time. Give me a product that isn't. I can think of literally hundreds of products that pre-date capitalism. Ergo, they don't have to be a product of a capitalist system. Care to name some...? Other than the many green beans in my local green Grocers? Even they will have been subject to capitalism. Unless planted and picked completely by hand, and transported direct to the grocers by foot, by someome wearing home made clothes from fabric they made themselves by hand, and the grocer can't use electricity in his shop. " None of which wanted to make any profit. | |||
" How should Joe conduct his day? I would not tell presume to tell Joe how to conduct his day. However I do reserve the right to point out to Joe how he is being manipulated and conditioned to give support to those who will do him and his family harm in the name of profit. Earlier I reserved the right to point out that the liberal dimwits all work for capitalist organisations using them to expand their empires. To which you had no answer. Ironically you probably work for one and if you don't you still use all the services and products of corporate capitalism you seem to despise, making you an extreme hypocrite. Time to get off your high horse sunshine. All of them work for a capitalist organisation? I'm sure that some people don't. Are you saying that a product, any product can only be the result of a capitalist system? Yes, 99.99999999 % of the time. Give me a product that isn't. I can think of literally hundreds of products that pre-date capitalism. Ergo, they don't have to be a product of a capitalist system. Care to name some...? Other than the many green beans in my local green Grocers? Even they will have been subject to capitalism. Unless planted and picked completely by hand, and transported direct to the grocers by foot, by someome wearing home made clothes from fabric they made themselves by hand, and the grocer can't use electricity in his shop. None of which wanted to make any profit." I think that the point has been missed slightly. The original assertion was that products had to be created under capitalism. I am certainly not denying that they currently arrive in my shops due to the many wheels of capitalism. I was pointing out that capitalism isn't necessary for them to exist. | |||
| |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? " Poverty | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it. "What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down. I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that. I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it? | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty "You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right? | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right? "How do people in poverty make the rich richer? | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? " That's even more philosophical than my response...
You can definitley say that all of the things that predate capitalism would exist, including the many inventions of the ancient civilisations....
I mean, I could start randomly naming them... Cheese, oil paint, maths....
There were definitley products and advances in technology under the dictatorships of the 1930s onward - and you could make a very convincing argument that they weren't capitalist (although Russia under Stalin described its regime as "state capitalism", so the argument as to whether or not it was capitalist could keep academics squabbling for some time).
Of course, a lot of products were invented in capitalist regimes, but it is very hard to say whether they might or might not have been under other systems, since they all contain human minds.
| |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right? "I don't think it is, actually. Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can. Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify. | |||
| |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify. "How has it sought to rectify poverty? | |||
"But we were talking about products. If Britain was a socialist utopia, who would i build yachts for? " I'm sure that yachts might still exist. I have no idea what a "socialist utopia" might look like. However, with the technological revolution, I would suggest that in a world where resources were shared, people might actually spend a lot less time working. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
How has it sought to rectify poverty? "The struggle has been to retain as much of the surplus-value of a product as possible in the hands of those who created it, ie the labour force. This might be in the form of capital itself - for example in the form of wages, either in the form of the national minimum wage or wages negotiated privately between unions and employers. It might be in the form of benefits that cost the capitalist class, either directly (pension plans etc - although I know some are also state funded), or through taxation, either corporate tax or income tax levied on higher earners. | |||
"But we were talking about products. If Britain was a socialist utopia, who would i build yachts for? I'm sure that yachts might still exist. I have no idea what a "socialist utopia" might look like. However, with the technological revolution, I would suggest that in a world where resources were shared, people might actually spend a lot less time working. " People would always want more. If working more hours gives more cash, people will do it. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
How has it sought to rectify poverty?
The struggle has been to retain as much of the surplus-value of a product as possible in the hands of those who created it, ie the labour force.
This might be in the form of capital itself - for example in the form of wages, either in the form of the national minimum wage or wages negotiated privately between unions and employers. It might be in the form of benefits that cost the capitalist class, either directly (pension plans etc - although I know some are also state funded), or through taxation, either corporate tax or income tax levied on higher earners. "What on earth is the capitalist class? Anyone who earns saves and spends? | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
How has it sought to rectify poverty?
The struggle has been to retain as much of the surplus-value of a product as possible in the hands of those who created it, ie the labour force.
This might be in the form of capital itself - for example in the form of wages, either in the form of the national minimum wage or wages negotiated privately between unions and employers. It might be in the form of benefits that cost the capitalist class, either directly (pension plans etc - although I know some are also state funded), or through taxation, either corporate tax or income tax levied on higher earners.
What on earth is the capitalist class? Anyone who earns saves and spends? "No. The owners of the means of production. | |||
"But we were talking about products. If Britain was a socialist utopia, who would i build yachts for? I'm sure that yachts might still exist. I have no idea what a "socialist utopia" might look like. However, with the technological revolution, I would suggest that in a world where resources were shared, people might actually spend a lot less time working. " Yeah yachts could exist for the elite, I'm sure Stalin or Lenin would have had one built for themselves, but sod the 99.9% of the rest of the population they are not worthy under a communist state set up. | |||
"But we were talking about products. If Britain was a socialist utopia, who would i build yachts for? I'm sure that yachts might still exist. I have no idea what a "socialist utopia" might look like. However, with the technological revolution, I would suggest that in a world where resources were shared, people might actually spend a lot less time working. Yeah yachts could exist for the elite, I'm sure Stalin or Lenin would have had one built for themselves, but sod the 99.9% of the rest of the population they are not worthy under a communist state set up. " Nobody was talking about historic dictatorships here (although - see my earlier point about "State Capitalism). Do yachts not only exist for the elite under capitalism? I know I couldn't afford one. Anyway, your point is moot - you didn't understand what Clem was driving at, which is that products create employment, including his and not all products are nescessary (such as yachts), so where would jobs like his go in a hypothetical "utopia". | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
How do people in poverty make the rich richer?"By having the poor peoples money obviously. How can you have rich without poor? | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify. "Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more) | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)"That sounds very childish. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)"No it isn't. It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage. (surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it) | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)"But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour."Again. Childish. | |||
| |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
Again. Childish. "Are you saying I'm childish, or capitalism is childish? | |||
"What i don't understand is why people think that ukip voters are ex Tories or uber right wing. All the peeps i know who vote ukip are also trade union members and often vote, or used to vote for Labour. And not just Tony the criminal. " I don't think anybody has said that UKIP voters are ex-tory or ultra right wing. UKIP members, however...... My point is (and always has been) that UKIP are a far-right party who have sought to make themselves appear more acceptable than the traditional far-right. The BNP tried a similar thing (and failed spectacularly) under Nick Griffin. I'm sure it was about the time of the demise of Nick Griffin that UKIP fleshed out their manifesto so that they had actual policies and started campaigning on being more than a single-issue party. Their tactics have always been ( like the BNP before them) to go for the disenfranchised, former labour voters, so I am not surprised that people who have voted UKIP are also trade unionists. Britain First have famously given their support to UKIP, saying their members should vote UKIP, and there was the whole debacle in kent (Stevenage if my memory serves) where BF turned up on the streets to "protect" kippers at a by-election. The EDL have also claimed to have been in talks with UKIP - of course, UKIP have distanced themselves from both of these parties, because they wish to appear acceptable. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour."I think a lot of them already owned more than their neighbour - feudal wealth financed capital endeavour and in a lot of cases the old feudal elite embraced the new system and became the capitalist elite. There is a piece of historcal information somewhere that goes roughly: When William the conqueror had taken Britain, he divided the land thus: He kept half for the crown and gave a quater each to the church and his barons. The descendents of his barons still own roughly a fifth of the land in Britain and the church is still the single biggest landowner in Britain. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
Again. Childish.
Are you saying I'm childish, or capitalism is childish? "I'm saying you sound like a student union bar bore. Your arguments are childish in their simplisity. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
I think a lot of them already owned more than their neighbour - feudal wealth financed capital endeavour and in a lot of cases the old feudal elite embraced the new system and became the capitalist elite.
There is a piece of historcal information somewhere that goes roughly: When William the conqueror had taken Britain, he divided the land thus: He kept half for the crown and gave a quater each to the church and his barons. The descendents of his barons still own roughly a fifth of the land in Britain and the church is still the single biggest landowner in Britain. "You see. This ^^ is an adult post. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
Again. Childish.
Are you saying I'm childish, or capitalism is childish?
I'm saying you sound like a student union bar bore. Your arguments are childish in their simplisity."The fab forums struggle with complex arguments, they dont know what a mandate is, or if the UK has a constitution or not, or what the purpose of the WTO is. I notice that you haven't actually provided any counter points to my arguments, just tried to dismiss them out of hand and attacked me personally. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
Again. Childish.
Are you saying I'm childish, or capitalism is childish?
I'm saying you sound like a student union bar bore. Your arguments are childish in their simplisity.
The fab forums struggle with complex arguments, they dont know what a mandate is, or if the UK has a constitution or not, or what the purpose of the WTO is.
I notice that you haven't actually provided any counter points to my arguments, just tried to dismiss them out of hand and attacked me personally. "Lol i haven't attacked you personally! Don't be so melodramatic! | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
Again. Childish.
Are you saying I'm childish, or capitalism is childish?
I'm saying you sound like a student union bar bore. Your arguments are childish in their simplisity.
The fab forums struggle with complex arguments, they dont know what a mandate is, or if the UK has a constitution or not, or what the purpose of the WTO is.
I notice that you haven't actually provided any counter points to my arguments, just tried to dismiss them out of hand and attacked me personally.
Lol i haven't attacked you personally! Don't be so melodramatic! "So which part of "you sound like a student union bar bore" is a counter point to my actual arguement? | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
Again. Childish.
Are you saying I'm childish, or capitalism is childish?
I'm saying you sound like a student union bar bore. Your arguments are childish in their simplisity.
The fab forums struggle with complex arguments, they dont know what a mandate is, or if the UK has a constitution or not, or what the purpose of the WTO is.
I notice that you haven't actually provided any counter points to my arguments, just tried to dismiss them out of hand and attacked me personally.
Lol i haven't attacked you personally! Don't be so melodramatic!
So which part of "you sound like a student union bar bore" is a counter point to my actual arguement? "You don't have an argument. | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
Again. Childish.
Are you saying I'm childish, or capitalism is childish?
I'm saying you sound like a student union bar bore. Your arguments are childish in their simplisity.
The fab forums struggle with complex arguments, they dont know what a mandate is, or if the UK has a constitution or not, or what the purpose of the WTO is.
I notice that you haven't actually provided any counter points to my arguments, just tried to dismiss them out of hand and attacked me personally.
Lol i haven't attacked you personally! Don't be so melodramatic!
So which part of "you sound like a student union bar bore" is a counter point to my actual arguement?
You don't have an argument. "So your comments must have been aimed at me personally then. | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it? "No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention. | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it?
No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention. "So you can't find a quote? Not one? Not one tiny little quote where I have talked the UK down? That's strange isn't it. Maybe its because I never had?
I find it very strange that a Leave supporter said that Britain cant run railways but Europe can, and you attack the person who said Britain CAN run railways and accuse them of talking Britain down. Very curious. | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it?
No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention.
So you can't find a quote? Not one? Not one tiny little quote where I have talked the UK down? That's strange isn't it. Maybe its because I never had?
I find it very strange that a Leave supporter said that Britain cant run railways but Europe can, and you attack the person who said Britain CAN run railways and accuse them of talking Britain down. Very curious. "Read my post instead of deflecting again | |||
| |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it?
No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention.
So you can't find a quote? Not one? Not one tiny little quote where I have talked the UK down? That's strange isn't it. Maybe its because I never had?
I find it very strange that a Leave supporter said that Britain cant run railways but Europe can, and you attack the person who said Britain CAN run railways and accuse them of talking Britain down. Very curious.
Read my post instead of deflecting again "I'm saying Britain can run railways, should I assume that you disagree with me, and agree with the other poster that European countries can run railways but we cant? Whose talking Britain down now? | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it?
No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention.
So you can't find a quote? Not one? Not one tiny little quote where I have talked the UK down? That's strange isn't it. Maybe its because I never had?
I find it very strange that a Leave supporter said that Britain cant run railways but Europe can, and you attack the person who said Britain CAN run railways and accuse them of talking Britain down. Very curious.
Read my post instead of deflecting again
I'm saying Britain can run railways, should I assume that you disagree with me, and agree with the other poster that European countries can run railways but we cant? Whose talking Britain down now? "I've always talked this great nation up. Deflection from _lcc yet again! | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it?
No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention.
So you can't find a quote? Not one? Not one tiny little quote where I have talked the UK down? That's strange isn't it. Maybe its because I never had?
I find it very strange that a Leave supporter said that Britain cant run railways but Europe can, and you attack the person who said Britain CAN run railways and accuse them of talking Britain down. Very curious.
Read my post instead of deflecting again
I'm saying Britain can run railways, should I assume that you disagree with me, and agree with the other poster that European countries can run railways but we cant? Whose talking Britain down now?
I've always talked this great nation up. Deflection from _lcc yet again!"What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it?
No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention.
So you can't find a quote? Not one? Not one tiny little quote where I have talked the UK down? That's strange isn't it. Maybe its because I never had?
I find it very strange that a Leave supporter said that Britain cant run railways but Europe can, and you attack the person who said Britain CAN run railways and accuse them of talking Britain down. Very curious.
Read my post instead of deflecting again
I'm saying Britain can run railways, should I assume that you disagree with me, and agree with the other poster that European countries can run railways but we cant? Whose talking Britain down now?
I've always talked this great nation up. Deflection from _lcc yet again!
What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? "lol you always have to be right lol | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it?
No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention.
So you can't find a quote? Not one? Not one tiny little quote where I have talked the UK down? That's strange isn't it. Maybe its because I never had?
I find it very strange that a Leave supporter said that Britain cant run railways but Europe can, and you attack the person who said Britain CAN run railways and accuse them of talking Britain down. Very curious.
Read my post instead of deflecting again
I'm saying Britain can run railways, should I assume that you disagree with me, and agree with the other poster that European countries can run railways but we cant? Whose talking Britain down now?
I've always talked this great nation up. Deflection from _lcc yet again!
What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver?
lol you always have to be right lol"I am always right about how I feel about the country of my birthday, yes, I certainly know more about how I feel than any poster on here. How about you "Steve"? If I told you that you thought Scotland was a shithole, and you said that you loved Scotland, who would be right? Me or you? | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it?
No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention.
So you can't find a quote? Not one? Not one tiny little quote where I have talked the UK down? That's strange isn't it. Maybe its because I never had?
I find it very strange that a Leave supporter said that Britain cant run railways but Europe can, and you attack the person who said Britain CAN run railways and accuse them of talking Britain down. Very curious.
Read my post instead of deflecting again
I'm saying Britain can run railways, should I assume that you disagree with me, and agree with the other poster that European countries can run railways but we cant? Whose talking Britain down now?
I've always talked this great nation up. Deflection from _lcc yet again!
What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver?
lol you always have to be right lol
I am always right about how I feel about the country of my birthday, yes, I certainly know more about how I feel than any poster on here.
How about you "Steve"? If I told you that you thought Scotland was a shithole, and you said that you loved Scotland, who would be right? Me or you? "When you read back your comment, you will find it is impossible for you to be correct, you need to concentrate more on what you are trying to say | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
Again. Childish.
Are you saying I'm childish, or capitalism is childish?
I'm saying you sound like a student union bar bore. Your arguments are childish in their simplisity.
The fab forums struggle with complex arguments, they dont know what a mandate is, or if the UK has a constitution or not, or what the purpose of the WTO is.
I notice that you haven't actually provided any counter points to my arguments, just tried to dismiss them out of hand and attacked me personally.
Lol i haven't attacked you personally! Don't be so melodramatic!
So which part of "you sound like a student union bar bore" is a counter point to my actual arguement?
You don't have an argument.
So your comments must have been aimed at me personally then. "Ok ok you're right, i don't think you'd win any prizes in a debating competition. But I'm not insulting you, i just don't think you know your subject as well as you think you do. You're not alone | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it?
No. I am saying, unlike you, I have better things to do. We all know you think the UK can't prosper without being in the EU. So don't try and deflect from the point AGAIN. You finally accept you have been wrong all along, we do not need European intervention.
So you can't find a quote? Not one? Not one tiny little quote where I have talked the UK down? That's strange isn't it. Maybe its because I never had?
I find it very strange that a Leave supporter said that Britain cant run railways but Europe can, and you attack the person who said Britain CAN run railways and accuse them of talking Britain down. Very curious.
Read my post instead of deflecting again
I'm saying Britain can run railways, should I assume that you disagree with me, and agree with the other poster that European countries can run railways but we cant? Whose talking Britain down now?
I've always talked this great nation up. Deflection from _lcc yet again!
What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? "What are you on? I haven't criticsed the railways. I have pointed out that you can finally accept we don't need the European Union telling us how to run things. You can obviously read, how about you learn how to comprehend what you read | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify.
Capitalism is about one person wanting more than his neighbour. He can only have more, if someone else has less, after all, if everyone has the same, that's not capitalism. So capitalism has to make poverty (less) to create riches (more)
No it isn't.
It's about the means of production being allowed to be owned by individuals. This inevitably creates the situation where those who do well in their ownership aquire more of the means of production. They need to create a product (or several products). but wish to retain as much of the surplus-value of that product in their hands. The product is created by the workforce, who also wish some of the surplus value of that product in the form of a wage.
(surplus value is the value of a product which is not taken up by the cost of producing it)
But why do you think those people seek to own the means of production? So they can have more than their neighbour.
Again. Childish.
Are you saying I'm childish, or capitalism is childish?
I'm saying you sound like a student union bar bore. Your arguments are childish in their simplisity.
The fab forums struggle with complex arguments, they dont know what a mandate is, or if the UK has a constitution or not, or what the purpose of the WTO is.
I notice that you haven't actually provided any counter points to my arguments, just tried to dismiss them out of hand and attacked me personally.
Lol i haven't attacked you personally! Don't be so melodramatic!
So which part of "you sound like a student union bar bore" is a counter point to my actual arguement?
You don't have an argument.
So your comments must have been aimed at me personally then.
Ok ok you're right, i don't think you'd win any prizes in a debating competition. But I'm not insulting you, i just don't think you know your subject as well as you think you do. You're not alone "You explain it then, how can you have rich without poor? | |||
"Ok. So what could exist today without capitalism? Poverty
You do you that the whole point of capitalism is to create poverty, right?
I don't think it is, actually.
Poverty is inevitable, but that isn't the point. The point is for the owner of the means of production to retain as much of the value of the product as he can.
Which has, as a consequence, driven people into poverty - which the labour movement has sought to rectify. "Actually there is a paper from an economist that to create capitalism, poverty is needed. So to kick start it they introduced extreme oppression to create the poor/rich divide. The CIA did this throughout south America. The writer of this paper was assassinated in the us. They were known as Chicago Boys. | |||
" i just don't think you know your subject as well as you think you do. You're not alone" was this comment an accident or was it deliberately meant to be as ironic as it turned out? | |||
" What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? What are you on? I haven't criticsed the railways. I have pointed out that you can finally accept we don't need the European Union telling us how to run things. You can obviously read, how about you learn how to comprehend what you read "What has the EU got to do with railways?  | |||
" What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? What are you on? I haven't criticsed the railways. I have pointed out that you can finally accept we don't need the European Union telling us how to run things. You can obviously read, how about you learn how to comprehend what you read
What has the EU got to do with railways? "Read your posts from the beginning. I'm not wasting my time on you any further. | |||
" What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? What are you on? I haven't criticsed the railways. I have pointed out that you can finally accept we don't need the European Union telling us how to run things. You can obviously read, how about you learn how to comprehend what you read
What has the EU got to do with railways?
Read your posts from the beginning. I'm not wasting my time on you any further."You read it. One person says about the state selling off the railways to foreign national rail subsidiaries. Another person says that's because British people dont know how to run the railways. I said we do. You have been arguing with me ever since, you either have to agree that I'm right (Im guessing that you would rather stab yourself in the eye with a fork than ever admit that), or you can agree with the other Leaver and say that British people can't run railways and that we need Europeans to show us how to do it. Then for some reason you brought the European Union into, even though they have nothing to do it with it. I guess that was just your ignorance of the EU showing. 
So which is it? Am I right? Or is Britain shit? | |||
| |||
" What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? What are you on? I haven't criticsed the railways. I have pointed out that you can finally accept we don't need the European Union telling us how to run things. You can obviously read, how about you learn how to comprehend what you read
What has the EU got to do with railways?
Read your posts from the beginning. I'm not wasting my time on you any further.
You read it. One person says about the state selling off the railways to foreign national rail subsidiaries. Another person says that's because British people dont know how to run the railways. I said we do. You have been arguing with me ever since, you either have to agree that I'm right (Im guessing that you would rather stab yourself in the eye with a fork than ever admit that), or you can agree with the other Leaver and say that British people can't run railways and that we need Europeans to show us how to do it.
Then for some reason you brought the European Union into, even though they have nothing to do it with it. I guess that was just your ignorance of the EU showing.
So which is it? Am I right? Or is Britain shit? "I have never said British people can't run the railway system. You have fabricated that to deflect from what I did say which I will repeat for your benefit. You have finally accepted that Britain doesn't need European influence and interference. Which was the whole point of Brexit. Now jog on | |||
" What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? What are you on? I haven't criticsed the railways. I have pointed out that you can finally accept we don't need the European Union telling us how to run things. You can obviously read, how about you learn how to comprehend what you read
What has the EU got to do with railways?
Read your posts from the beginning. I'm not wasting my time on you any further.
You read it. One person says about the state selling off the railways to foreign national rail subsidiaries. Another person says that's because British people dont know how to run the railways. I said we do. You have been arguing with me ever since, you either have to agree that I'm right (Im guessing that you would rather stab yourself in the eye with a fork than ever admit that), or you can agree with the other Leaver and say that British people can't run railways and that we need Europeans to show us how to do it.
Then for some reason you brought the European Union into, even though they have nothing to do it with it. I guess that was just your ignorance of the EU showing.
So which is it? Am I right? Or is Britain shit?
I have never said British people can't run the railway system. You have fabricated that to deflect from what I did say which I will repeat for your benefit. You have finally accepted that Britain doesn't need European influence and interference. Which was the whole point of Brexit. Now jog on "So you admit that Im right and Britian can run railways then? That's very big of you! Well done, who's a good boy? You are, yes you are x | |||
"It's a myth that only private companies can run the railways well and profitably. East Coast mainline was outperforming all the others when the state was running it. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/26/east-coast-mainline-why-privatise" At last! I thought I was going to have to point out that privatisation is ideologically not economically driven, and I am getting sick of seemingly being the only person here to voice views based on fact rather than opinion! | |||
" What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? What are you on? I haven't criticsed the railways. I have pointed out that you can finally accept we don't need the European Union telling us how to run things. You can obviously read, how about you learn how to comprehend what you read
What has the EU got to do with railways?
Read your posts from the beginning. I'm not wasting my time on you any further.
You read it. One person says about the state selling off the railways to foreign national rail subsidiaries. Another person says that's because British people dont know how to run the railways. I said we do. You have been arguing with me ever since, you either have to agree that I'm right (Im guessing that you would rather stab yourself in the eye with a fork than ever admit that), or you can agree with the other Leaver and say that British people can't run railways and that we need Europeans to show us how to do it.
Then for some reason you brought the European Union into, even though they have nothing to do it with it. I guess that was just your ignorance of the EU showing.
So which is it? Am I right? Or is Britain shit?
I have never said British people can't run the railway system. You have fabricated that to deflect from what I did say which I will repeat for your benefit. You have finally accepted that Britain doesn't need European influence and interference. Which was the whole point of Brexit. Now jog on
So you admit that Im right and Britian can run railways then? That's very big of you! Well done, who's a good boy? You are, yes you are x "I never said Britain couldn't You are just deflecting like you always do because in your earlier post you finally admitted we don't need Europe but wont admit it yet we all read it. So grow up. | |||
" What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? What are you on? I haven't criticsed the railways. I have pointed out that you can finally accept we don't need the European Union telling us how to run things. You can obviously read, how about you learn how to comprehend what you read
What has the EU got to do with railways?
Read your posts from the beginning. I'm not wasting my time on you any further.
You read it. One person says about the state selling off the railways to foreign national rail subsidiaries. Another person says that's because British people dont know how to run the railways. I said we do. You have been arguing with me ever since, you either have to agree that I'm right (Im guessing that you would rather stab yourself in the eye with a fork than ever admit that), or you can agree with the other Leaver and say that British people can't run railways and that we need Europeans to show us how to do it.
Then for some reason you brought the European Union into, even though they have nothing to do it with it. I guess that was just your ignorance of the EU showing.
So which is it? Am I right? Or is Britain shit?
I have never said British people can't run the railway system. You have fabricated that to deflect from what I did say which I will repeat for your benefit. You have finally accepted that Britain doesn't need European influence and interference. Which was the whole point of Brexit. Now jog on
So you admit that Im right and Britian can run railways then? That's very big of you! Well done, who's a good boy? You are, yes you are x
I never said Britain couldn't You are just deflecting like you always do because in your earlier post you finally admitted we don't need Europe but wont admit it yet we all read it. So grow up."You obviously still dont know what the EU do! | |||
" What am I deflecting????? You have ignored, yet again, my question. Maybe it's just too hard for you to admit that you agree with me about the railways and disagree with a Leaver? What are you on? I haven't criticsed the railways. I have pointed out that you can finally accept we don't need the European Union telling us how to run things. You can obviously read, how about you learn how to comprehend what you read
What has the EU got to do with railways?
Read your posts from the beginning. I'm not wasting my time on you any further.
You read it. One person says about the state selling off the railways to foreign national rail subsidiaries. Another person says that's because British people dont know how to run the railways. I said we do. You have been arguing with me ever since, you either have to agree that I'm right (Im guessing that you would rather stab yourself in the eye with a fork than ever admit that), or you can agree with the other Leaver and say that British people can't run railways and that we need Europeans to show us how to do it.
Then for some reason you brought the European Union into, even though they have nothing to do it with it. I guess that was just your ignorance of the EU showing.
So which is it? Am I right? Or is Britain shit?
I have never said British people can't run the railway system. You have fabricated that to deflect from what I did say which I will repeat for your benefit. You have finally accepted that Britain doesn't need European influence and interference. Which was the whole point of Brexit. Now jog on
So you admit that Im right and Britian can run railways then? That's very big of you! Well done, who's a good boy? You are, yes you are x
I never said Britain couldn't You are just deflecting like you always do because in your earlier post you finally admitted we don't need Europe but wont admit it yet we all read it. So grow up.
You obviously still dont know what the EU do! "Fuck all for us as soon as we get out | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just maybe because they make a better job of it than uk firms that are infected by the crap management of the old BR way, have you ever seen how crap and lazy network rail's employees are, I have aline through my land and if "actually" work about 15 mins per hour I would be amazed. K works as a HV and they have been run by virgin for nearly a year now she says most days howmuch better it is, just need to get rid of the extra layers of manangement put in by good old tone and his pals, and strangely IIRC they run it on a non profit basis Why are you always talking Britain down? You think the Europeans know how to run a railway and we don't? We invented the bloody things! Ah Mr Pot, I see you've Mr Kettle So for clarity; the British are better, or just as good, at things as the Europeans and we don't need them. Thank the Lord you can see the light, you are healed brother
Can you name me one time that I have talked Britain down? Quote me.
All your Brexit posts saying the country can't survive without Europe. You often forecast the countries imminent doom. I don't need to quote.
Back to the point I made, which you have tried to deflect. Britain doesn't neex Eoropean intervention in how we run things. That is waht leaving the union is all about. You finally get it.
What you mean is you are incapable of finding one single quote out of my thousands of posts that actually talks Britain down.
I have never said that Britain won't survive, but it is stupid to think that Britain will be in a better place if it tells it's most important trading partner to piss off. That is not unique to Britain, it's stupid for any country or any business to do that.
I could cut both my arms off and still survive, doesn't mean its a good idea though does it? "Perhaps if it prevented you typing? | |||
| |||
| |||
"..... burn "Still haven't answered the question clem... Maybe you dont understand the subject? | |||
"Unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy costs money and strangles competition in business. Without healthy competition business stagnates, people get complacent and nothing moves forward and we have seen this put into practice within the EU. Donald Trump has the right attitude towards regulations, his policy is for every new regulation created two old regulations must be abolished. Name a single piece of unnecessary regulation and I will find you the reason that regulation was introduced! further the idea that today is different to the time when we needed regulations has been proved false over and over again. When regulations have been relaxed and withdrawn business has over time returned to the practices that eventually forced pro business politicians to introduce regulations in the first place. A prime example being the deregulation of private rented accommodation and rents charged by landlords and the return of slumlords who charge exorbitant rents for accommodation that is unfit for human habitation and evict anyone who complains, just like their Dickensian forefathers, or the likes of Union Carbide who when forced to stop poisoning US and Europeans relocated to India and poisoned Indians (Bhopal) rather than clean up their act! " CPD training . Why should it be compulsory ? Decisions should be made by the relevant regulatory body , not some EU bureaucrat. Even LGV and PCV drivers have to have it . Thanks to EU energy policies , our fuel bills are more expensive and it is more difficult to buy simple light bulbs . | |||
"CPD training . Why should it be compulsory ? Decisions should be made by the relevant regulatory body , not some EU bureaucrat. Even LGV and PCV drivers have to have it . Thanks to EU energy policies , our fuel bills are more expensive and it is more difficult to buy simple light bulbs . " Your absolutely right, there is no reason for CDP, other than it gives an individual a record of all training they receive. After all why would any company that had the ability to tie an employee to them by making their qualifications belong to the company rather than the individual do so? it is not as if any professional body would offer 2 sets of qualification, one where the qualification belongs to the individual who qualifies and one that belongs to the company. Unless of course your talking about the British Institute of Non Destructive Test Engineers and the difference between an CM and a PCN qualifications. | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries?" Just to back this up,Scot Rail let Abelio take one million pounds in profit every month out of the contract. Has Scot Rail improved under Abelio , not one bit. | |||
"Ahh sorry. I thought you were being realistic. Your right, I'm being unrealistic and dreaming. Why would we run the Greater Anglia line, Merseyrail, Northern Rail, when Abellio (the Dutch state rail operator’s international arm) can run them and transfer millions in profits back to the Netherlands each year while claiming hundreds of millions in subsidies from the state? Same for London Overground, (German state rail operator Deutsche Bahn and private company MTR), Arriva CrossCountry, Arriva Trains Wales, (German state rail company’s international subsidiary), Southern, Southeastern, First TransPennine Express, (are all Kelios joint ventures, Kelios is the French state’s international rail subsidiary). Do you notice a pattern here? Could it be our Tory ideologies are not anti state ownership of UK infrastructure just anti UK state ownership of UK infrastructure when they can line their corrupt pockets selling it off cheap to other countries? Just to back this up,Scot Rail let Abelio take one million pounds in profit every month out of the contract. Has Scot Rail improved under Abelio , not one bit. " Sorry, my bad for not mentioning Scott Rail. | |||
