Looks like Bush

This is good stuff, nothing like a good ol' political carve up to show ones true colours, Mind you haven't seen a lot of Political tolerence here
Click to expand...

Let's face it, it has been a lot less partisan, more tolerant and informative than many of the discussions round here on, say, hi-fi equipment supports.
 
Strictly speaking, Americans aren't a race but a national people, and an extremely diverse one at that, which resists pigeonholing.
Click to expand...
I guess that makes derogatory generalisations about Americans OK then.

Somebody mentioned a Welsh windbag, though.
Click to expand...
He's both Welsh and a windbag. It's not quite the same thing. It's not a phrase I would choose to use though, I don't care about Kinnock's origin or verbosity.

So, let me see, because I have left wing views, ie I care about others,
Click to expand...
That defines 'left wing views' then? In that case I'm more left than you because I have a better idea of what it takes to improve the lot of the downtrodden and therefore care more.

I should divest myself of all my posessions and go and live in a monastery, coming out only at weekends to help out at the soup kitchen for the homeless...
Click to expand...
Whatever.

This idea that you can't be both wealthy and a socialist is quite absurd. Equally as absurd as saying that you can't be poor and/or working class and a capitalist.
Click to expand...
It's the idea of being a socialist capitalist that's contradictory. A socialist landlord is a hypocrite. A wealthy socialist making returns on investments is a hypocrite. A socialist taking steps to avoid tax is a hypocrite. Or not really a socialist.

Paul
 
It's good to see all the old 'self rigthcious indignation' being aired here, prehaps a debating forum for middle class wanna Ken loach whorshipers, and stock broker belt fondlings with aspirations of 'canley fields' desire, and the good old boy's down the local, projecting that blinkingsop sunday league minors with 'get a damn sound thrashing' from their next opponents. Maybe Entitled, Left of centre, off the planet.
 
Paul Ranson said:
It's the idea of being a socialist capitalist that's contradictory. A socialist landlord is a hypocrite. A wealthy socialist making returns on investments is a hypocrite. A socialist taking steps to avoid tax is a hypocrite. Or not really a socialist.

Paul
Click to expand...

Exaaaaactly. And following with that list, a socialist sending his/her kids to private school is........

Matt.
 
Paul Ranson said:
I have a better idea of what it takes to improve the lot of the downtrodden and therefore care more
Click to expand...
Nothing like a bit of modesty :rolleyes:

It's the idea of being a socialist capitalist that's contradictory. A socialist landlord is a hypocrite. A wealthy socialist making returns on investments is a hypocrite. A socialist taking steps to avoid tax is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
I don't meet any of those criteria above. However, if you live in a system that is fundamentally capitalist, it is virtually impossible to practise a lifestyle fundamentally opposed to it so I actually disagree that any of those criteria you mention necessarily makes someone a hypocrite. For example, a landlord providing not for profit, low-rent accomodation for the poor is not a hypocrite if he also claims to be a socialist.

Michael.
 
Paul Ranson said:
I guess that makes derogatory generalisations about Americans OK then.

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul, I would not make a sweeping generalisation- the demographic is so clearly divided it would be impossible.

I would however say that a proportion of the US population are hideously ill informed about world events, fed lies by both parties and their limited media. Does this not make them ignorant in the literal sense? If so, does it not worry you that these people have the power to elect the most powerful man on earth?

It occurs to me that this is democracy working in a way it was never envisaged it would, simple mind control of the uneducated masses, maintaining control of massive wealth through fear and propoganda. Or did Orwell come close all those years ago? The aim seems not to do your electoral bases' will but to control them. That is not what the founding fathers had in mind I suspect.
 
I'm afraid there isn't a soap box big enough for me to rant about political mashanations and how the whole thing just stinks worse than a skunks armpit after he stiffed Mrs Skunk after a night of the vindaloo and 2 pints of tumbleweed larger.
So I will politely bow out of this one gents, knowing full well thy splines will be well and truely vented. Wm
 
michaelab said:
Absolutely not. Did you read my earlier post on the matter?

Michael.
Click to expand...

Of course I read your post and I fully understand people wanting the best for their kids but, to me, a socialist sending his or her kids to private schools is hypocritical.

I think it's fair to say that I'm not alone on this one:

From the BBC website:

"Labour MP Diane Abbott has said sending her son to a £10,000-a-year private school instead of a comprehensive is "indefensible". In her first detailed comments on the controversy, she told BBC One's This Week programme: "Private schools prop up the class system in society.

"It is inconsistent, to put it mildly, for someone who believes in a fairer and more egalitarian society to send their child to a fee-paying school."

But, she added: "I had to choose between my reputation as a politician and my son."

When Prime Minister Tony Blair sent his eldest son, Euan, to the London Oratory, a selective school, she criticised him, saying people voted Labour because they believed in equality.

And when Solicitor General Harriet Harman sent her son to a selective grammar school in Orpington, Kent, Ms Abbott said: "She made the Labour Party look as if we do one thing and say another."

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3229453.stm

So, even the New Labourites doing it admit they are hypocrites.

Matt.
 
can't say i'm very surprised - i just wonder how much bin laden was paid for his timely intervention last week.
 
Some good news just in from the States.

Antidepressant sales up 48%, Condom stocks shooting through the ceiling, and the Dutch have a very optimistic forcast for their film industry!
 
merlin said:
I would however say that a proportion of the US population are hideously ill informed about world events, fed lies by both parties and their limited media. Does this not make them ignorant in the literal sense? If so, does it not worry you that these people have the power to elect the most powerful man on earth?

It occurs to me that this is democracy working in a way it was never envisaged it would, simple mind control of the uneducated masses, maintaining control of massive wealth through fear and propoganda. Or did Orwell come close all those years ago? The aim seems not to do your electoral bases' will but to control them. That is not what the founding fathers had in mind I suspect.
Click to expand...
Mike,

I have to say that I find your comments just a teensy bit patronising. If 'these people' had voted for the guy you preferred would they be well-informed, sound, intelligent and displaying good judgement?

Are the Americans so much dumber than our own populace? Perhaps we shouldn't allow any of the non-hi-fi-owning-public the vote at all.

As for the 'simple mind control of the uneducated masses, maintaining control of massive wealth through fear and propoganda', do I detect a dose of over-influence by BBC documentary? I can't wait to watch tonight's unbiased, neutral episode. Or is propoganda to be swallowed without question, if it comes from the BBC?

Perhaps this isn't quite what the founding fathers had in mind but, from memory, they had a great deal more faith in their electorate than you do and they certainly didn't have in mind that their citizens should be dictated to by us Brits. Wasn't that precisely what they were trying to get away from?
 
As for the M3, I do about 2-3000 miles a year in it, 90% of those being non-urban miles. I'm putting out far fewer emissions over a year than the average car user.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you are genuinely worried about environmental issues, I'd be more concerned about the many plane journeys you make between Portugal and the UK. Everyone seems to forget this, but planes produce many orders of magnitude higher CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, you are contributing to massive amounts of CO2 emissions with your current arrangements.
 
Steve,

I apologise for sounding patronising. FWIW, I haven't seen the BBC documentary, only the unbiased Michael Moore offering :D

I think the whole American political structure sucks and did not favour either of the Lemons. I do however feel that if the people had voted the present incumbent out, it would have sent a message that would have been clear to all - we don't like what's going on.

What is scary is that the overriding reason many voted for Bush seems to have been moral values suggesting a religeous bias. If that were not scary enough, the guy they trust claims to be born again, has put his history of drug and alcohol abuse behind him, and has spent four years behaving in a most uncristian manner to impoverished people around the world.

Now if these people don't deserve to be slammed for being so gullible, then I must be missing the point. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and suggesting it's not their fault they are kept in the dark. How much fairer can I be ;)
 
7_V said:
Perhaps we shouldn't allow any of the non-hi-fi-owning-public the vote at all.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the last people who should be allowed to vote are hi-fi owners, they have a worrying tendency to believe any old bollocks spouted by snake-oil salesmen, a dangerous gullibility when applied to politics.

As for fear and propaganda, it seems pretty self-evident to me that fear, and its corollary, insularity, are increasingly playing a major role in western politics. It's largely neurosis rather than stupidity, but there's no denying that people are capable of quite awe-inspiring stupidity, sometimes on what appears to be a national scale.

-- Ian
 
why must things always be so stratified? left wing, right wing, etc... personally i'd prefer a government that cherry picked the best of both ideologies. basic social welfare, a good education and health system suported by well used tax money (i.e. not spunked away on some tarts wallpaper or a badly designed building). more openess and accountability to the public. referendums via the internet - open schools and offer free internet cafe sessions for those without access at home before anyone says. all supported by an ethical system of capitalism with tax breaks and advantages for companies that improve the world's conditions either ecologically, environmentally, socially or whatever. ok i may be naieve and utopian in my views and there would have to be good checks and balances to prevent the unscrupulous taking control as happened in the ussr (and is happening in the usa) but i think something would be workable to approach the ideal closer than what we have today.
well... i can dream can't i?
cheers


julian
 
just spotted this...
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

true or not it's funny...


also
bush2.2_02.jpg



ohhh and...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/26/fraud_potential_found_in_evoting/

cheers


julian
 
I think the whole American political structure sucks and did not favour either of the Lemons. I do however feel that if the people had voted the present incumbent out, it would have sent a message that would have been clear to all - we don't like what's going on.
Click to expand...

'We' the people did vote. They had a choice and choose to stay with the same guy for another 4 years. We the majority quite clearly do like whats going on or We would have voted for the other muppet.....


The best thing on todays telly was Johnny Rottens Bright Yellow and Black anti-Shark suit.
John Lydon for president, at least he'd be honest......
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top