snowychap Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, bickster said: Seems apt then for those that have driven up foodbank use, created a homelessness crisis, increased NHS waiting times... I could add plenty more to the list but you get the gist It isn't apt at all. Quite the contrary. 29 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I didn't think I'd cause such a ruckus, it's one of the nicer things I usually call them. The effect these **** have had on the lives of those most in need of social services in the last decade? **** them. I won't sugar coat what I think of them, and that includes everyone who puts a cross in that box. There's no point feigning politeness and civil discourse when the other point of view is "**** society, I've got mine". Your use of the term didn't cause a ruckus. I merely wrote a one line post with a polite request which, through misunderstanding and misinterpretation*, itself has caused something of a ruckus. Edit: And it has had people listing the effects of the Tories over the last nine years in response as if I haven't been aware of what has happened in the country and in politics, or do not have a posting history replete in criticism of Tory government actions (as well as criticism of other governments), or if I hadn't personally been in difficulties due to various government policies. It's quite remarkable, really. It isn't about being polite or sugar-coating. It isn't about the Tories. It is about regarding people as people whatever they do (good, bad, indifferent). Anyway, the use of the great word 'ruckus'' has me yearning for some Wu-Tang Clan so I'm off. Edited November 20, 2019 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 46 minutes ago, snowychap said: It isn't apt at all. Quite the contrary. Your use of the term didn't cause a ruckus. I merely wrote a one line post with a polite request which, through misunderstanding and misinterpretation*, itself has caused something of a ruckus. Edit: And it has had people listing the effects of the Tories over the last nine years in response as if I haven't been aware of what has happened in the country and in politics, or do not have a posting history replete in criticism of Tory government actions (as well as criticism of other governments), or if I hadn't personally been in difficulties due to various government policies. It's quite remarkable, really. It isn't about being polite or sugar-coating. It isn't about the Tories. It is about regarding people as people whatever they do (good, bad, indifferent). Anyway, the use of the great word 'ruckus'' has me yearning for some Wu-Tang Clan so I'm off. I don't think every single human being has earned the right to not be called scum. Going off-piste a bit but how would you describe a serial paedophile or rapist? Would you consider the word to be appropriate then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Nonce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, snowychap said: You misunderstand what I meant. I said people - not 'people who vote Tory'. Whilst i agreed with your initial post with the use of the word "people" , Davakus specifically said Tories are lying scum in his post , that was what i was referring to in my reply to Banned possibly would have helped had I quoted him with me reply ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: I don't think every single human being has earned the right to not be called scum. It's not about earning a right (or losing a right or having a right). 15 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Going off-piste a bit but how would you describe a serial paedophile or rapist? Would you consider the word to be appropriate then? 5 hours ago, snowychap said: 6 hours ago, NurembergVillan said: Is there anything a person or group of people could ever do to warrant the term "scum"? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, markavfc40 said: I think if you stick an X in the box next to a Tory candidate then unless you are thick as pig shit, which is quite possible of course, I haven't really even scratched the surface above but I think it is clear it takes a special kind of person to vote Tory and some of them would warrant being labelled scum. Edited just now by markavfc40 I get your passionate about the labour party and what you think it stands for , but no offence intended that sort of post is rather bigoted and does you a disservice 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 hours ago, desensitized43 said: ITV were being mischeivous with the question on a number of levels tbf. Corbyn's smirk was acknowledgement of that. Corbyn is a republican, but it's a perfectly legitimate point of view (one I share). He's been on record many times criticising the institution, so his reponse shouldn't come as a great surprise to anyone. The media do like to portray everyone who thinks that way as some sort of raving lunatic/communist though Corbyn may be at least one of those things. The point is though, if you can't criticise an institution that is sheltering someone accused of raping a child, is that a country you want to live in? I took the whole thing to be a serious indicator of Johnson's lack of a moral compass. At the very least he wasn't clever enough to understand the implication of what he was being asked. i think we are going around in circles a little here , we both have a different view and I doubt either of us is going to be swayed by the other , but you seem to be criticizing Johnson for not being clever enough to understand a question whilst complimenting Corbyn for smirking at the same question as he knew it was a mischievous one .. it was 2 different questions , you almost seem to be merging them both into 1 Q for Johnson whilst acknowledging it was 2 different Q's for Corbyn. Johnson said the law should take its course in the Epstein case , that didn't specifically answer the Andrew question , but I don't see any moral compass issues in what was said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 NEF modelled the proposals about NI changes which were being put forward by candidates for the tory leadership a few months ago. It sounds like the current proposal is the first of the dot points below. Quote ...New microsimulation modelling by NEF has shown that all proposals would increase inequality and poverty, while costing between at least £4.4 and £9.5bn every year Increasing the monthly threshold of NICs, supported by both Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson, would cost £8.2bn per year if the lower earnings limit were set at £1000 per month. The effect would be to increase disposable incomes by £560 for the richest 20% of families and £80 for the poorest 20%. As a result, the reform would push 50,000 families below the new poverty line. Cutting the basic rate of income tax, as proposed by Sajid Javid, would cost £4.4bn if lowered by just 1%. This would increase annual incomes for the richest families by £450 compared with just £10 for the poorest, and push 50,000 more families into poverty. If cut by as much as 5% (as proposed by previous leadership candidate Dominic Raab) the treasury would lose more than £22bn in revenue every year and 150,000 families would fall below the poverty line. Increasing the annual threshold for the higher rate of income tax and the upper earnings limit for NICS from £50,000 to £80,000, proposed by Boris Johnson, would cost £9.5bn per year. The richest households would on average see disposable incomes rise by £1,790 per year, with no rise at all for the poorest 20% of families. The modelling results showed that proposed changes to NICs and the basic rate of income tax would increase inequality for two main reasons. First, those families with little or no taxable income, who make up the majority of the UK’s poorest households, by definition miss out on the benefits altogether. Second, families with two or more people in receipt of taxable income – which tend to be higher up the income distribution on average – will receive at least double the benefits from the proposed tax cuts compared to families with just one person in work. The proposed increase to the higher rate threshold would only cut taxes for the richest 15% of taxpayers, with the largest gains going to those earning more than £80,000 per year (top 5%)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Is he trying to make right with karma or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, tonyh29 said: I get your passionate about the labour party and what you think it stands for , but no offence intended that sort of post is rather bigoted and does you a disservice I wouldn't even say I am passionate about the Labour party I am though passionately anti Tory so can see why you would get that impression. I believe you have had the same issues in people thinking you are a Tory whereas just very much anti Labour. I have to be honest I am pretty intolerant towards those who vote Tory as they must know that whilst it may result in some of us having a few more quid in our pockets, in comparison to being under a Labour government, it will almost certainly mean those most vulnerable amongst us will suffer and public services will certainly not thrive. Just the last 9 years alone have given me all the evidence I need to back up those beliefs as those with the least have gotten a right good kicking and public services have been decimated. I do therefore struggle to see how anyone who genuinely cares about society and especially wanting to see those most vulnerable amongst get a helping hand, which to me is quite a natural thing to want to see, then go and vote Tory. If this makes me a bigot so be it. Edited November 20, 2019 by markavfc40 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, peterms said: NEF modelled the proposals about NI changes which were being put forward by candidates for the tory leadership a few months ago. It sounds like the current proposal is the first of the dot points below. Just shows what an absolute load of horse shit the average definition of poverty is. Give people more money, and poverty increases because they've got marginally less money than somebody else. Arbitrary percentage/median based definitions really are completely hopeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 24 minutes ago, Risso said: Just shows what an absolute load of horse shit the average definition of poverty is. Give people more money, and poverty increases because they've got marginally less money than somebody else. Arbitrary percentage/median based definitions really are completely hopeless. Everything's relative, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 4 hours ago, tonyh29 said: I get your passionate about the labour party and what you think it stands for , but no offence intended that sort of post is rather bigoted and does you a disservice Nothing wrong with being "bigoted" against people because of what they do, think and say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Gove flailing around on C4 news, trying to defend the "fact check" nonsense as not misleading. They filmed him in a farmyard, presumably to have an appropriate backdrop of bullshit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, markavfc40 said: I wouldn't even say I am passionate about the Labour party I am though passionately anti Tory so can see why you would get that impression. I believe you have had the same issues in people thinking you are a Tory whereas just very much anti Labour. I have to be honest I am pretty intolerant towards those who vote Tory as they must know that whilst it may result in some of us having a few more quid in our pockets, in comparison to being under a Labour government, it will almost certainly mean those most vulnerable amongst us will suffer and public services will certainly not thrive. Just the last 9 years alone have given me all the evidence I need to back up those beliefs as those with the least have gotten a right good kicking and public services have been decimated. I do therefore struggle to see how anyone who genuinely cares about society and especially wanting to see those most vulnerable amongst get a helping hand, which to me is quite a natural thing to want to see, then go and vote Tory. If this makes me a bigot so be it. I don't know if you will join me in thinking so @tonyh29 , but I feel there is a widespread opinion that if are against a Labour government that automatically makes you a bad person. If you see little merit in making railways public or offering free broadband, and you want to keep private schools as they are, that pretty much equates in hating poor people, wanting them to die on the streets while parading to a massive portrait of Putin in "make America great again" hat. You know, the type of stuff you often see on Twitter. @markavfc40, while I doubt that was your intention and we could debate all the point that you mentioned (and we should, both privately and publically), the post felt like it suggested that sort of a rhetoric. Hence I think @tonyh29 felt that it's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mic09 said: I don't know if you will join me in thinking so @tonyh29 , but I feel there is a widespread opinion that if are against a Labour government that automatically makes you a bad person. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Most people are this forum are both anti Tory and anti Corbyn but anti Tory is a stronger sentiment Theres barely any hardcore pro labour on here 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, Mic09 said: I don't know if you will join me in thinking so @tonyh29 , but I feel there is a widespread opinion that if are against a Labour government that automatically makes you a bad person. If you see little merit in making railways public or offering free broadband, and you want to keep private schools as they are, that pretty much equates in hating poor people, wanting them to die on the streets while parading to a massive portrait of Putin in "make America great again" hat. You know, the type of stuff you often see on Twitter. @markavfc40, while I doubt that was your intention and we could debate all the point that you mentioned (and we should, both privately and publically), the post felt like it suggested that sort of a rhetoric. Hence I think @tonyh29 felt that it's not right. Unusually, you’ve got it arse backwards. It’s not about being against Labour making you bad. Many on here are against Labour, just read some entries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 8 minutes ago, Mic09 said: while parading to a massive portrait of Putin in "make America great again" hat. You know, the type of stuff you often see on Twitter If people are willing to ignore or excuse the current tactics to suppress information, spreading disinformation from official party sources and ignore all the lies this is absolutely the way this will go. As has happened with Trump, if people keep defending something just slightly worse than last weeks controversy then a few years down the line you end up losing sight of where your morals were when it all started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 20, 2019 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, peterms said: Gove flailing around on C4 news, trying to defend the "fact check" nonsense as not misleading. They filmed him in a farmyard, presumably to have an appropriate backdrop of bullshit. What amazed me was they sent Gove to Scotland to campaign. it's like they don't want to win a Scottish seat at all. The defence of the Fact Checking was exactly the kind of nonsense I expect from them. Defending the indefensible with bullshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts