Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/16/ben-bradley-under-fire-for-blogpost-urging-jobless-people-to-have-vasectomies

He has since backtracked...but does he have a point?

"A Conservative MP who has been appointed as a party vice-chairman once suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than continuing to have children they could not afford to support.

In a blogpost, Ben Bradley claimed that the country would be soon “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if workless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.

Bradley, who unexpectedly defeated Labour’s Alan Meale last year to become the Tory MP for Mansfield, made the comments in 2012 in support of a government policy for a benefit cap.

The 28-year-old, who was promoted to Conservative vice-chair representing young people in Theresa May’s new year reshuffle, apologised for the inappropriate post and said he had since matured. Labour said the comments were evidence that the “nasty party” lived on. "

by Original Quill Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:35 pm

Maddog wrote:
Quill wrote:No. The Department of Defense is responsible for around 70% of spending. Everything pales in comparison.

I expect a correction will be coming, in the spirit if the rules around here.

You lose, but expect a correction? Alt.right logic, right?

by Maddog Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:37 pm

Quill wrote:
No. The Department of Defense is responsible for around 70% of spending. Everything pales in comparison.

Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies. - Page 3 Budget11

I expect a correction will be coming, in the spirit if the rules around here.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:53 pm

Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies. - Page 3 Spending_2005_half

Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies. - Page 3 Fed-budget-2008_01

Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies. - Page 3 Us_budget-2010

Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies. - Page 3 Budget_pie_chart_meme

Going back to 2005, it's all military on top. You get the point...

by Maddog Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:54 pm

Original Quill wrote:

Going back to 2005, it's all military on top. You get the point...

Quill wrote:Discretionary

by Maddog Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:55 pm

Quill wrote:I'm too fucking stupid to know what discretionary means.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:59 pm

Maddog wrote:I'm too fucking stupid to know what spending means.

by Maddog Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:I'm too fucking stupid to know what spending means.

The U.S. Treasury divides all federal spending into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt. Mandatory and discretionary spending account for more than ninety percent of all federal spending, and pay for all of the government services and programs on which we rely. Interest on debt, which is a much smaller amount than the other two categories, is the interest the government pays on its accumulated debt, minus interest income received by the government for assets it owns. The pie chart shows federal spending in 2015 broken into these three categories.

by JulesV Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:25 am

Building the infrastructure of a community cannot just happen by magic, people need to come together and contribute financially towards this.

Without the infrastructure there's no community. Smile

by JulesV Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:30 am

''wealth distribution'' is an emotive expression and I can sense the underlying resentment of those who use that expression.

The origin of the wealth of a nation - that's a complex concept, it has history behind it.

The practice in the south of forcing people to do a lifetime's work for NO PAY whatsoever (ie slavery) .... it's stealing wealth from them, and this is how much of the economy in that region was generated.

''Purchasing'' vast swathes of land from the American Indians or Russians for a pittance (often under duress) is also stealing wealth.

IE enforced/unfair ''wealth distribution'' (in your favour) already happened long before you were born, your generation did not invent the concept.

by 'Wolfie Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:01 am

Maddog likes to claim that his "no harm" mantra will naturally oppose such things as slavery and stealing land and resources from indigenous peoples...

Then in his next breath, we will often see him go on to praise those who built their businesses and wealth on slavery and theft..

While falsely claiming that "peoples charity and largesse" will somehow automatically take care of the poor, the sick, the disabled, the homeless -- contrary to the evidence of thousands of years of human civilisation.

And apparently in such a Libertarian paradise, such necessary infrastructure the likes of roads, fresh water, power, garbage and waste disposal, communications, will naturally be supplied to everyone by his "capitalist" system with no government intervention..

Never forgetting, that in 'Libertarianism,' the central role of a (minimalist) government is considerd to be "the protection of private property"...

And the 'consequences' be damned.. Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies. - Page 3 1191311443

Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies. - Page 3 1191311443

by Original Quill Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:01 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The U.S. Treasury divides all federal spending into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt. Mandatory and discretionary spending account for more than ninety percent of all federal spending, and pay for all of the government services and programs on which we rely. Interest on debt, which is a much smaller amount than the other two categories, is the interest the government pays on its accumulated debt, minus interest income received by the government for assets it owns. The pie chart shows federal spending in 2015 broken into these three categories.

Blah, blah, blah...leave it to a fuckin' redneck to mis-interpret the big picture. Fuckin' truth is that the military spends all the money. Duck that, you in-bred hillbilly.

by Guest Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:10 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

The U.S. Treasury divides all federal spending into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt. Mandatory and discretionary spending account for more than ninety percent of all federal spending, and pay for all of the government services and programs on which we rely. Interest on debt, which is a much smaller amount than the other two categories, is the interest the government pays on its accumulated debt, minus interest income received by the government for assets it owns. The pie chart shows federal spending in 2015 broken into these three categories.

Blah, blah, blah...leave it to a fuckin' redneck to mis-interpret the big picture. Fuckin' truth is that the military spends all the money. Duck that, you in-bred hillbilly.

Seriously, read back and ask yourself how hateful you are being and similar to someone racist and hateful?

Your emotions have gotten to the better of you.

If the Us never spent the money of miltary and a massive point on this, is WW2, you would not have the freedom to cast Maddog no better than some white supremacist

He is not a redneck or inbred and that is the kind of views spouted only by people of hate

What he does do is challenge you as I do and you simple do not like that.

You are emotionally compremised

Do the human rights of others matter or only yours?

by Original Quill Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:43 am

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Blah, blah, blah...leave it to a fuckin' redneck to mis-interpret the big picture. Fuckin' truth is that the military spends all the money. Duck that, you in-bred hillbilly.

Seriously, read back and ask yourself how hateful you are being and similar to someone racist and hateful?

Your emotions have gotten to the better of you.

If the Us never spent the money of miltary and a massive point on this, is WW2, you would not have the freedom to cast Maddog no better than some white supremacist

He is not a redneck or inbred and that is the kind of views spouted only by people of hate

What he does do is challenge you as I do and you simple do not like that.

You are emotionally compremised

Do the human rights of others matter or only yours?

War is not the US mission.

by Guest Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:45 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Seriously, read back and ask yourself how hateful you are being and similar to someone racist and hateful?

Your emotions have gotten to the better of you.

If the Us never spent the money of miltary and a massive point on this, is WW2, you would not have the freedom to cast Maddog no better than some white supremacist

He is not a redneck or inbred and that is the kind of views spouted only by people of hate

What he does do is challenge you as I do and you simple do not like that.

You are emotionally compremised

Do the human rights of others matter or only yours?

War is not the US mission.

Well I guess you need a refresher course in history

by Original Quill Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:02 am

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

War is not the US mission.

Well I guess you need a refresher course in history

I don't think so. What is needed is some agreement that the US has invented too many wars that were unnecessary. Maybe some political operatives should apologize to the many American families who have lost sons to the tragedies they have created.

Otherwise, let's put their children into the ovens. I mean, equal is equal.

by Guest Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:06 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Well I guess you need a refresher course in history

I don't think so. What is needed is some agreement that the US has invented too many wars that were unnecessary. Maybe some political operative should apologize to the many American families who have lost sons to the tragedies they have created.

Otherwise, let's put their children into the ovens. I mean, equal is equal.

Actually its not invented many wars, but got drawn into far too many wars.
I think many people have gone to war willingly, because they believe they are defending what they see as freedoms and they have given their lives for that. Ask yourself how many families have even asked for an apology?

Not many and why, because they know what itls like to have freedom

I mean look how again emotionally compremised you are?

You invoke children in ovens

We saw children die in their thousands in ovens, because the world at the time was antisemitic and did nothing

by Original Quill Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:13 am

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't think so. What is needed is some agreement that the US has invented too many wars that were unnecessary. Maybe some political operative should apologize to the many American families who have lost sons to the tragedies they have created.

Otherwise, let's put their children into the ovens. I mean, equal is equal.

Actually its not invented many wars, but got drawn into far too many wars.
I think many people have gone to war willingly, because they believe they are defending what they see as freedoms and they have given their lives for that. Ask yourself how many families have even asked for an apology?

Not many and why, because they know what itls like to have freedom

I mean look how again emotionally compremised you are?

You invoke children in ovens

We saw children die in their thousands in ovens, because the world at the time was antisemitic and did nothing

Dude...I't not our problem. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:16 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Actually its not invented many wars, but got drawn into far too many wars.
I think many people have gone to war willingly, because they believe they are defending what they see as freedoms and they have given their lives for that. Ask yourself how many families have even asked for an apology?

Not many and why, because they know what itls like to have freedom

I mean look how again emotionally compremised you are?

You invoke children in ovens

We saw children die in their thousands in ovens, because the world at the time was antisemitic and did nothing

Dude...I't not our problem.

So if its not your problem, why even pay any taxes or have any health care system?

Its not your problem right, if someone gets ill across the road from you?

Lets take any doctor on this, why should they help you if you got ill?

Its not their problem right?

by Original Quill Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:46 am

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Dude...I't not our problem.
So if its not your problem, why even pay any taxes or have any health care system?

Its not your problem right, if someone gets ill across the road from you?

No, those are our problems.

Didge wrote:Lets take any doctor on this, why should they help you if you got ill?

Its not their problem right?

But that's their job.

by Guest Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:50 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:
So if its not your problem, why even pay any taxes or have any health care system?

Its not your problem right, if someone gets ill across the road from you?

No, those are our problems.

Didge wrote:Lets take any doctor on this, why should they help you if you got ill?

Its not their problem right?

But that's their job.

Our?

You are dividing people based on capitalism

I find that ironic

They are paid to save lives, but they do not have to, so why should they save yours based on your selfish philosophy?

The whole world is our problem, when it comes to human rights and health care.

Sadly you have never know what its like to suffer real discrimination. You just piggyback off the plight of others that do

by 'Wolfie Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:19 pm

Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies. - Page 3 3893789544

Re: the O/P...

All Tory politicians should be neutered as a condition of them taking their seats in parliament..

by Original Quill Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:43 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Re: the O/P...

All Tory politicians should be neutered as a condition of them taking their seats in parliament..

My solution is to fence off a huge portion of Brazil and put all conservatives and Republicans in there and lock the gate. But your solution has a better long-term effect.

pirat

by Ben Reilly Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:20 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

You and I have much different definitions of freedom.

I have the freedom to own an AR-15. Most people would say that you don't, while you are saying you do as long as you don't get caught.

Should I personally have the freedom to have my own private nuclear arsenal? And if not -- why not?

I think we should have some limits. You get to have a tank and a bazooka.

Nuclear arms are dangerous just by their very existence. Your tank would require you to have some malice to really be a threat. It's not going to harm people just sitting there. Nuclear weapons are unstable. A tank needs an unstable person to make it dangerous.

And if you want to get picky, we could use the old 2nd Amendment and limit people to "arms", which are typically considered weapons you can carry around.

But according to your own philosophy, shouldn't I be free to do absolutely anything I want as long as I'm not hurting anybody?

Why do you draw that particular line?

I think if you're honest, you'll recognize that you've already admitted that the rights of the individual sometimes have to take a back seat to the security of society.

by Maddog Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:27 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I think we should have some limits. You get to have a tank and a bazooka.

Nuclear arms are dangerous just by their very existence. Your tank would require you to have some malice to really be a threat. It's not going to harm people just sitting there. Nuclear weapons are unstable. A tank needs an unstable person to make it dangerous.

And if you want to get picky, we could use the old 2nd Amendment and limit people to "arms", which are typically considered weapons you can carry around.

But according to your own philosophy, shouldn't I be free to do absolutely anything I want as long as I'm not hurting anybody?

Why do you draw that particular line?

I think if you're honest, you'll recognize that you've already admitted that the rights of the individual sometimes have to take a back seat to the security of society.

"Sometimes" translates to "not very often", in my twisted world.

And I mentioned the problem with nuclear weapons that is different than conventional weapons.

by Original Quill Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:34 pm

While we're at all this rule-making, abolish all property...from here on, there are no property rights, only possession.

And any means to take possession is all right, too. That's the way it is on the international front, the UN and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding.

by Maddog Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:While we're at all this rule-making, abolish all property...from here on, there are no property rights, only possession.

And any means to take possession is all right, too. That's the way it is on the international front, the UN and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding.

How about we don't cyclops

by Original Quill Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:43 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:While we're at all this rule-making, abolish all property...from here on, there are no property rights, only possession.

And any means to take possession is all right, too. That's the way it is on the international front, the UN and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding.

How about we don't

See, that's what I don't get. Libertarians want all rules of government suspended, except those rules that go to private property. There's nothing sacrosanct about the rules of private property. Fuck them.

All property is subject to taking. If you don't like it, tough titty.

by Ben Reilly Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:59 am

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I think we should have some limits. You get to have a tank and a bazooka.

Nuclear arms are dangerous just by their very existence. Your tank would require you to have some malice to really be a threat. It's not going to harm people just sitting there. Nuclear weapons are unstable. A tank needs an unstable person to make it dangerous.

And if you want to get picky, we could use the old 2nd Amendment and limit people to "arms", which are typically considered weapons you can carry around.

But according to your own philosophy, shouldn't I be free to do absolutely anything I want as long as I'm not hurting anybody?

Why do you draw that particular line?

I think if you're honest, you'll recognize that you've already admitted that the rights of the individual sometimes have to take a back seat to the security of society.

"Sometimes" translates to "not very often", in my twisted world.

And I mentioned the problem with nuclear weapons that is different than conventional weapons.

Sure you did, and that was enough, really. Freedom can't be absolute, or else you and I could drive the wrong way down Throckmorton (holla!) as long as we didn't have any head-on collisions.

by Maddog Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:22 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

"Sometimes" translates to "not very often", in my twisted world.

And I mentioned the problem with nuclear weapons that is different than conventional weapons.

Sure you did, and that was enough, really. Freedom can't be absolute, or else you and I could drive the wrong way down Throckmorton (holla!) as long as we didn't have any head-on collisions.

Agreed, but I prefer to error on the side of too much freedom because too little comes with oppression, whether you feel oppressed or not.

by eddie Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:01 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

"Sometimes" translates to "not very often", in my twisted world.

And I mentioned the problem with nuclear weapons that is different than conventional weapons.

Sure you did, and that was enough, really. Freedom can't be absolute, or else you and I could drive the wrong way down Throckmorton (holla!) as long as we didn't have any head-on collisions.

Agreed, but I prefer to error on the side of too much freedom because too little comes with oppression, whether you feel oppressed or not.

I kinda agree with that.

by Sponsored content

Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

Re: Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.