What is Reason?

I am not surprised many young people are supporters of Labour. This is very easy to explain, where our school system for decades has been run by a majority of the left brainwashing the youth for the last couple of decades.

At least people are standing up to this brainwashing.

"Brainwashed" by the left  !!!!!

In a country that's had a conservative gov't  running things..

Drunk again, Dodge ?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Brainwashed" by the left  !!!!!

In a country that's had a conservative gov't  running things..

Drunk again,  Dodge  ?

Wow, so you think the conservative government has spies listening on lessons and would stop any teacher brainwashing children?

It happens all the time

Take religious schools, where only ofsted visits only once in a blue moon

So exaplin to me, how you can monitor leftist teachers, who are very much a part of damaging the minds of young people making them so fragile?

The fact you think this is down to drink on my part, shows you lack any thought processing here, but I expect nothing less from someone with the intellect of a toddler

Again we have countless examples and evidence in the US this is happenning on the west and east coast

We have evidence here on how students are acting and trying to decide how Universities should teach

Explain to me where they get these ideas?

Of course you want to make fun of this, because being the leftist that you are, you are happy, that kids, are having a left leaning biased education

90% of teachers and professors in this country are left wing.

Now explain to me, how they are then not biased in presenting their views

What we do know is this. That when people become older and wiser, they end up dropping the views from the left that are absurd. 

Thank goodness for that, as it shows actually wisdom comes with age and its always right wing. Except of course those too conditioned like yourself and institutionalized, they cannot think for themselves

There is merit in both right and left wing views, but if people on the left are mainly left, then it is always going to be baised in teaching

Young people have generally always been lefties anyway. It's their thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:Young people have generally always been lefties anyway. It's their thing.

Indeed and thank goodness, most end up growing up....

Though again I put this down to education, where there has always been an imbalance of more leftist wetwipe teachers

I mean I even have first hand experince of this attempt to indoctrinate

In the third year of secondary school. I was doing European studies, which is a polite way to say I am shit at languages. I admit I am crap at them and even English. This teacher Mr Webster, was a Marxist and decided to in a number of lessons get very political. Me coming from a Conservative leaning family, though not all my siblings are. Objected to this in the lessons. He threatened to have me suspended for pulling him up on this and I was placed into detention. 

Now normally, if I went home to my parents and complained about school, they would never take my side and I would get a right beating. Except, in this instance when I did complain, my late father was furious. He came to the school the very next day and asked why a teacher, supposed to be teaching languages was trying to sway 13 to 14 year olds on politics. Being a Brother De La Salle Catholic school. The Headmaster was also annoyed and very apologetic. This teacher Mr Webster got repremanded over this. 

Later on I actually got to know this teacher better after I left school and we got on. Sadly he has now passed away, but he always respected that I stood up to him. He had never seen that before. We became good friends, as he frequented the local pub years ago that I went to.

So when I say the left has an over imbalance of teachers, they certainly do and many have no qualms about spreading their bias onto students

When people teach, they should be neutral on views, to generate people to think for themselves

Education itself is left-leaning, because it's based on the left-wing premise that knowledge is power.

As opposed to the right-wing premise - POWER is power

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:Education itself is left-leaning, because it's based on the left-wing premise that knowledge is power.

As opposed to the right-wing premise - POWER is power

Really?

So to you, all learning and knowledge has always been left wing?

This is why now I understand why people are going to the right in droves

Its this warped pompous view by the left, that anything that they perceive is educational, must be left wing

You reap what you sow

How is right wing premise power, when the most murdereous regimes in history have been left wing?

Mao alone made Hitler look an amateur on murder

Even more stupid, you think this is an opportune moment to present a smile

No wonder you struggle

You see Ben. Here is the difference between you and me Ben and also Eilzel. The left have become so snobbish, that they think they are like many religious fanatics. Infalliable. That only left wing views and even worse how they plagerise views to become left wing. Is what is wrong with society today. There is now an intellectual snobbery and its not even based on any facts. The left seem to assign themselves to any progress in history, when in the real world, they never made these leaps and bounds of progression. It actually was mainly conservative and religious minded people. Where being an athiest I can admit this.

The fact that you hold yourself to a view above other people. Shows that middle class socialists are no better than Capitalists and its hilarious. As they seek the same think. These same socialists are inspired to be better, which is a fundemental attribute of capilatism. Except, you fail to see that. The chance to better your life, which socialism denies. You cannot get more hypocritical than that.

My view is that people like yourself and Eilzel, are todays version of Neville Chamberlain. Inherantly naive and still swayed by a failed political system. No matter how many times that system fails. You will continue down the same path of failure.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.

Again there is good views on left and right, which will be best placed for a better society

Green from me Didge, You put it better than I could.

nicko wrote:Green from me Didge,  You put it better than I could.

Thanks mate. The sad reality is the left have become the new snobs today. They see no wrong they do and any right in history, they lay claim to.

I love ripping apart people that lie on history and Quill is the worst, followed by Ben

Raggamuffin wrote:Young people have generally always been lefties anyway. It's their thing.

Yeah, until they start earning real cash, having kids and getting responsibilities.  Then it all changes because they realise they and their families come first, not some idealistic crusade the herd run with.

Makes me laugh when you see these kids bleating on about how they didn't vote in the referendum because nobody told them about what it all entailed   They had months and months to do so.  It was only when the stink started they realised they suddenly want to be a part of it the revolution and should have got their lazy arses to the poll station.  Well, tough fucking titters.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Young people have generally always been lefties anyway. It's their thing.

Yeah, until they start earning real cash, having kids and getting responsibilities.  Then it all changes because they realise they and their families come first, not some idealistic crusade the herd run with.

Makes me laugh when you see these kids bleating on about how they didn't vote in the referendum because nobody told them about what it all entailed   They had months and months to do so.  It was only when the stink started they realised they suddenly want to be a part of it the revolution and should have got their lazy arses to the poll station.  Well, tough fucking titters.

+1

Wierd, we end up being in agreement too much

Have you ever noticed that right wing ads like the OP are always negative?  It’s always how the left has blundered, the end is near, disaster is pending, or any number of adjectives, repeated over-and-over.  You never get a picture of what the right really wants or stands for.  You get screen shots of flowers and pleasant music when they briefly refer to themselves, but never any real talk about how they would do it better.

Then, when the right finally gets elected, they turn out to be these incredible, deplorable types, that want to repress the people, or go to war somewhere, eliminate regulation, destroy government and social programs of any sort, shut down free speech and free press, and always, forever and ever...cut taxes and screw people for profits.  The key is, you have to wait until they get in to see how bad they are.

And the right depends on you forgetting, from government to government, what they are like.  They depend on short memories…or should I say, they think you are stupid, with no longevity to your thought processes.

Always go back to the basics: interests.  As long as you are mindful of interests, you can never lose sight of what both sides represent.  The formula is quite simple: the left represents general interests; the right represents selfish interests.

The right sees government as either a source of wealth, or a limitation on costs. The power of government should be devoted to maximizing profits through strategic use of it’s military…or get out of the way.  In no way is it a societal tool for fixing ills or misfortune.  The right is so preoccupied with themselves that they can’t be bothered with any social needs.

The left sees government as a tool to answer the ills of the society, as they arise.  There is no downside to the left’s use of government, because there is no self-centeredness to their purpose.  The focus is only, is it ill-considered? Or, is it genius?

That is why criticisms from the right, aimed at the left, can only denounce mistakes or miscalculations, never malevolence.  The right uses frightening terms—disaster, downfall, etc.—but as terror-filled as they might be, they are never rapacious or self-serving.  That doesn’t describe the left.

When the left looks at the right, the subject shifts from mistake to deviousness, selfishness, and deceit.  Why do right wing governments always lie?  Why is that always a character of the right?  It always comes up with them.  It’s because they don’t want you to see that their core principle is selfishness, not the common good.

H.T. wrote:Yeah, until they start earning real cash, having kids and getting responsibilities. Then it all changes because they realise they and their families come first, not some idealistic crusade the herd run with.

Isn't that interesting. I was just speaking of interests, and here is a perfect example.

When the right criticizes the left, it is never for rapacity or self-interests, but for impractical 'idealism'. The comment about 'herd running with it' means that they recognize the concern over social ills, but they dismiss it...they don't care to fix it.

Then there is the reference to "real cash". This brings in the real motive of the right...self interest and acquisition of wealth.

Once again, the left represents the common interests, the right represents selfish interests.

Thank you, HT...for letting me borrow the example.

Original Quill wrote:Have you ever noticed that right wing ads like the OP are always negative?  It’s always how the left has blundered, the end is near, disaster is pending, or any number of adjectives, repeated over-and-over.  You never get a picture of what the right really wants or stands for.  You get screen shots of flowers and pleasant music when they briefly refer to themselves, but never any real talk about how they would do it better.

I guess they learnt that trait from the left Quill. Actually, people on the right never deny the problems that have been associated with the right. Only those in extreme do so like Tommy

Then, when the right finally gets elected, they turn out to be these incredible, deplorable types, that want to repress the people, or go to war somewhere, eliminate regulation, destroy government and social programs of any sort, shut down free speech and free press, and always, forever and ever...cut taxes and screw people for profits.  The key is, you have to wait until they get in to see how bad they are.

Except in history the right have ended slavery, helped bring about civil rights and gay marriage
How did that happen Quill, based on your premise?
I mean considering the democrats have led the US into far more wars than the right, how does your warped lying view play onto that fact
?

And the right depends on you forgetting, from government to government, what they are like.  They depend on short memories…or should I say, they think you are stupid, with no longevity to your thought processes.

Well considering the left have trid to paint themselves as superior, then something is wrong with leftist mentality. I mean to me , there is good and bad on both sides. You only see bad and hence why you fail the first basic hurdle of science on skeptism. You fail to challegence your own beliefs

Always go back to the basics: interests.  As long as you are mindful of interests, you can never lose sight of what both sides represent.  The formula is quite simple: the left represents general interests; the right represents selfish interests.

So why are we seeing you enact the right wing interest here?
The left are as selfishy to a view to enforce a view they hold
Hence you lie

The right sees government as either a source of wealth, or a limitation on costs. The power of government should be devoted to maximizing profits through strategic use of it’s military…or get out of the way.  In no way is it a societal tool for fixing ills or misfortune.  The right is so preoccupied with themselves that they can’t be bothered with any social needs.

Is that why we have pensions, health services etc? Wll if we relied on your miltary thinking. No Jews would exists

The left sees government as a tool to answer the ills of the society, as they arise.  There is no downside to the left’s use of government, because there is no self-centeredness to their purpose.  The focus is only, is it ill-considered? Or, is it genius?

Is that why they trade with China, who is one of the worst abusers on the left?

That is why criticisms from the right, aimed at the left, can only denounce mistakes or miscalculations, never malevolence.  The right uses frightening terms—disaster, downfall, etc.—but as terror-filled as they might be, they are never rapacious or self-serving.  That doesn’t describe the left.

I think criticism from the right, has you down to a tea. You are the worst hypocrites. You are the kind of people that would have bowed down to Hitler

When the left looks at the right, the subject shifts mistake to deviousness, selfishness, deceit.  Why do right wing governments always lie?  Why is that always a character of the right?  It always comes up with them.  It’s because they don’t want you to see that their core principle is selfishness, not the common good.

I think when the right looks at the left they see, the same problem from the past. The right see this and do not want to go down this path. The left, end up going down this path and meet in the middle with Stalin. The core principle of leftism is selfishness, as its based on a belief and not people. Hence why millions have died under such warped beliefs and how leftism is inherantly selfish

Original Quill wrote:

H.T. wrote:Yeah, until they start earning real cash, having kids and getting responsibilities.  Then it all changes because they realise they and their families come first, not some idealistic crusade the herd run with.

Isn't that interesting.  I was just speaking of interests, and here is a perfect example.

When the right criticizes the left, it is never for rapacity or self-interests, but for impractical 'idealism'.  The comment about 'herd running with it' means that they recognize the concern over social ills, but they dismiss it...they don't care to fix it.

Then there is the reference to "real cash".  This brings in the real motive of the right...self interest and acquisition of wealth.

Once again, the left represents the common interests, the right represents selfish interests.

Thank you, HT...for letting me borrow the example.

Of course people need to earn "real cash". They need to live and pay for stuff. If that makes someone self interested it also applies to lefties, unless they're using other people's cash to pay their bills (claiming benefits).

Didge wrote:I think when the right looks at the left they see, the same problem from the past. The right see this and do not want to go down this path. The left, end up going down this path and meet in the middle with Stalin.

What you are saying is, all problems are the same, and they reoccur. That's untrue...problems arise as circumstances change. If the circumstances change, they cannot be the same problem.

Didge wrote:The core principle of leftism is selfishness, as its based on a belief and not people. Hence why millions have died under such warped beliefs and how leftism is inherantly selfish

How is that a form of selfishness, even if it were true...which it is not? Once again, you are putting forth a criticism of that the left is mistaken, not that it is self-serving, such as one finds with the right.

Here is a diagram of the theory of causation: 'X -> Y'. What does '"a belief and not people" -> selfishness', even mean? Are you saying you cannot “believe” in “people”? The left belief is in humanism, which is simply another term for common interest? Or, is this another attempt by a RW'er to confuse and obfuscate?

My theory is quite simple:

Left: common interest -> remedy social ills;

Right: selfish interest -> ignore social ills, and look instead to self-interest.

I argue that, for the right, the government would not even exist were it not for the need for the military to serve private interests. So, the tension in this fight is always between selfishness vs. community.

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course people need to earn "real cash". They need to live and pay for stuff. If that makes someone self interested it also applies to lefties, unless they're using other people's cash to pay their bills (claiming benefits).

The point changes when you make 'cash' the goal. As you state it above, cash is an incident to life. So, put that way, we can toss out that cash is merely a common necessity.

But the RW makes it an political 'interest'. When it is a goal—a focus to all common purposes—it becomes political ideology. You are speaking of it in far different terms. A political ideology is far more significant and impacting than an incident to life.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course people need to earn "real cash". They need to live and pay for stuff. If that makes someone self interested it also applies to lefties, unless they're using other people's cash to pay their bills (claiming benefits).

The point changes when you make 'cash' the goal.  As you state it above, cash is an incident to life.  So, put that way, we can toss out that cash is merely a common necessity.

But the RW makes it an political 'interest'.  When it is a goal—a focus to all common purposes—it becomes political ideology.  You are speaking of it in far different terms.  A political ideology is far more significant and impacting than an incident to life.

It was you who used Horatio's post to change the meaning of what she said. Cash is the goal for many people, including lefties. That's because they want more than to just pay the bills and to live from pay packet to pay packet.

Raggamuffin wrote:It was you who used Horatio's post to change the meaning of what she said. Cash is the goal for many people, including lefties. That's because they want more than to just pay the bills and to live from pay packet to pay packet.

Ah, but H.T. was speaking in ideological terms.  She didn’t say I spent ‘£££’ today.  She spoke of goals and purposes in life:

H.T. wrote:Yeah, until they start earning real cash, having kids and getting responsibilities. Then it all changes because they realise they and their families come first, not some idealistic crusade the herd run with.

Althought she treated it as casual spending, she was leading into a point about goals…ideology, not casual spending.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It was you who used Horatio's post to change the meaning of what she said. Cash is the goal for many people, including lefties. That's because they want more than to just pay the bills and to live from pay packet to pay packet.

Ah, but H.T. was speaking in ideological terms.  She didn’t say I spent ‘£££’ today.  She spoke of goals and purposes in life:

H.T. wrote:Yeah, until they start earning real cash, having kids and getting responsibilities. Then it all changes because they realise they and their families come first, not some idealistic crusade the herd run with.

She was speaking of goals…ideology, not casual spending.

No, what she meant was that young people have the luxury of not worrying about responsibilities until they actually get responsibilities. That includes having to earn money.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ah, but H.T. was speaking in ideological terms.  She didn’t say I spent ‘£££’ today.  She spoke of goals and purposes in life:



She was speaking of goals…ideology, not casual spending.

No, what she meant was that young people have the luxury of not worrying about responsibilities until they actually get responsibilities. That includes having to earn money.

Whether the metaphor goes to the reward or responsibility of it, the point that she is reminding us of is that it's a money world.  To one who buys into that mileu, how is he going to maximize his life?

It's the ideology that comes forward.  It's an ideology that comes with a good, bad, up down and a back and forth to it, complete.  Once you step into it, your purposes are defined.  It's an ideology that tells people what their interests should be: go for the money...screw the care and concern for your brother.

It's the ideology of the right: which teaches--nay, preaches--the interests of the self.  That's all I meant.  Don't mean to pick on HT, but it's a very fine example with which to articulate the point.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, what she meant was that young people have the luxury of not worrying about responsibilities until they actually get responsibilities. That includes having to earn money.

Whether the metaphor goes to the reward or responsibility of it, the point that she is reminding us of is that it's a money world.  To one who buys into that mileu, how is he going to maximize his life?

It's the ideology that comes forward.  It's an ideology that comes with a good, bad, up down and a back and forth to it, complete.  Once you step into it, your purposes are defined.  It's an ideology that tells people what their interests should be: go for the money...screw the care and concern for your brother.

It's the ideology of the right: which teaches--nay, preaches--the interests of the self.  That's all I meant.  Don't mean to pick on HT, but it's a very fine example with which to articulate the point.

In other words, young people can afford to be lefties because they don't have responsibilities. Even lefties don't care that much about others in general. They care about themselves and their immediate family and friends - much like "right wing" people. I think you overestimate the ability of people in general to give a stuff about what's happening to people they don't know.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, what she meant was that young people have the luxury of not worrying about responsibilities until they actually get responsibilities. That includes having to earn money.

Whether the metaphor goes to the reward or responsibility of it, the point that she is reminding us of is that it's a money world.  To one who buys into that mileu, how is he going to maximize his life?

It's the ideology that comes forward.  It's an ideology that comes with a good, bad, up down and a back and forth to it, complete.  Once you step into it, your purposes are defined.  It's an ideology that tells people what their interests should be: go for the money...screw the care and concern for your brother.

It's the ideology of the right: which teaches--nay, preaches--the interests of the self.  That's all I meant.  Don't mean to pick on HT, but it's a very fine example with which to articulate the point.

In other words, young people can afford to be lefties because they don't have responsibilities. Even lefties don't care that much about others in general. They care about themselves and their immediate family and friends - much like "right wing" people. I think you overestimate the ability of people in general to give a stuff about what's happening to people they don't know.

No, lefties do care more about others they don't know than righties do - you can tell by the policies they prefer and the candidates they vote for.

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In other words, young people can afford to be lefties because they don't have responsibilities. Even lefties don't care that much about others in general. They care about themselves and their immediate family and friends - much like "right wing" people. I think you overestimate the ability of people in general to give a stuff about what's happening to people they don't know.

No, lefties do care more about others they don't know than righties do - you can tell by the policies they prefer and the candidates they vote for.

Which policies are those? How do you know that those people who vote for a left-wing party aren't voting for the party which is best for themselves?

It's easy to vote for a political party, but in reality, do lefties really do more to help others? I doubt it. Everyone's caught up in their own situations and their own lives.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I think when the right looks at the left they see, the same problem from the past. The right see this and do not want to go down this path. The left, end up going down this path and meet in the middle with Stalin.

What you are saying is, all problems are the same, and they reoccur.  That's untrue...problems arise as circumstances change.  If the circumstances change, they cannot be the same problem.

Didge wrote:Then I suggest you go to specsavers, if you think that. You simple continue to make busllgit up, whn taken to task

How is that a form of selfishness, even if it were true...which it is not?  Once again, you are putting forth a criticism of that the left is mistaken, not that it is self-serving, such as one finds with the right.

Here is a diagram of the theory of causation: 'X -> Y'.  What does '"a belief and not people" -> selfishness', even mean?  Are you saying you cannot “believe” in “people”?  The left belief is in humanism, which is simply another term for common interest?  Or, is this another attempt by a RW'er to confuse and obfuscate?

My theory is quite simple:

Left: common interest -> remedy social ills;

Right: selfish interest -> ignore social ills, and look instead to self-interest.

I argue that, for the right, the government would not even exist were it not for the need for the military to serve private interests.  So, the tension in this fight is always between selfishness vs. community.

Never laughed so ahrd in a long time at such gibberish, but thank you

Common interest?

When was the last time the left actually had this?

Being its being center right wing people that have brought about change?

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In other words, young people can afford to be lefties because they don't have responsibilities. Even lefties don't care that much about others in general. They care about themselves and their immediate family and friends - much like "right wing" people. I think you overestimate the ability of people in general to give a stuff about what's happening to people they don't know.

No, lefties do care more about others they don't know than righties do - you can tell by the policies they prefer and the candidates they vote for.

Really, based on what?

Do they care more about families and stay married more than conservatives?

Do you see how poor and untrue that statement actually is and is based on a poor lie you continually tell yourself?

Thor wrote:

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In other words, young people can afford to be lefties because they don't have responsibilities. Even lefties don't care that much about others in general. They care about themselves and their immediate family and friends - much like "right wing" people. I think you overestimate the ability of people in general to give a stuff about what's happening to people they don't know.

No, lefties do care more about others they don't know than righties do - you can tell by the policies they prefer and the candidates they vote for.

Really, based on what?

Do they care more about families and stay married more than conservatives?

Do you see how poor and untrue that statement actually is and is based on a poor lie you continually tell yourself?

American lefties support universal health care so that nobody goes broke from getting sick or dies because they can't afford treatment. American righties do not - they cheered for a candidate who said a dying person without health insurance should just die.

Top that.

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:

Thor wrote:


Really, based on what?

Do they care more about families and stay married more than conservatives?

Do you see how poor and untrue that statement actually is and is based on a poor lie you continually tell yourself?

American lefties support universal health care so that nobody goes broke from getting sick or dies because they can't afford treatment. American righties do not - they cheered for a candidate who said a dying person without health insurance should just die.

Top that.

So what?

How is that the bases for your previous claim that was an utter lie?

Now show me evidence the right do not support helping people with health care?

This is what is disgusting, people who lie and you are inherantly guilty of that

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:

Thor wrote:


Really, based on what?

Do they care more about families and stay married more than conservatives?

Do you see how poor and untrue that statement actually is and is based on a poor lie you continually tell yourself?

American lefties support universal health care so that nobody goes broke from getting sick or dies because they can't afford treatment. American righties do not - they cheered for a candidate who said a dying person without health insurance should just die.

Top that.

How do you know that the people voting for that aren't voting for their own benefit? Perhaps they are the ones who can't afford insurance.

Take the minimum wage, for example. Who is most likely to vote for a party which promises to raise it more than another party? The ones who are on minimum wage, right? Also, those higher up in a company where they pay minimum wage are going to vote for that party because their own salary will rise too, right?

You see, I know that you are lying on this Ben, as the most charitable in the US, is religious people, who again tend to be people on the right

So your view on leftist incompetent policies, does not then mean right wing people do not care about people on health. They simple do not agree with you on how help people should be provided to those that require medical health

Now I will give you the opportunity to admit that you lied for the sake of dishonesty, to further your own political warped agenda

Over to you

Who is most likely to vote for the party who promises to put more money into the NHS? Those who use the NHS the most, that's who.

Raggamuffin wrote:Who is most likely to vote for the party who promises to put more money into the NHS? Those who use the NHS the most, that's who.

The NHS is a flawed unworkable system, hence people who vote to put money into this are not understanding why it is unworkable

Its the only system in the world, that nobody else has taken up

That tells you everything about how flawed it really is

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Who is most likely to vote for the party who promises to put more money into the NHS? Those who use the NHS the most, that's who.

The NHS is a flawed unworkable system, hence people who vote to put money into this are not understanding why it is unworkable

Its the only system in the world, that nobody else has taken up

That tells you everything about how flawed it really is

That's a different issue. I'm talking about why people vote the way they do.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


The NHS is a flawed unworkable system, hence people who vote to put money into this are not understanding why it is unworkable

Its the only system in the world, that nobody else has taken up

That tells you everything about how flawed it really is

That's a different issue. I'm talking about why people vote the way they do.

I agree people do tend to vote that way, as its been hard wired into them to do so#

To me the NHS is unworkable and not viable. Hence why we should adopt other systems that do work.

Bens views was inherantly an utter lie that they right do not care for the health of people

In fact the conservative right tend to care more and give more than the left with charities that seek to help people

Thor wrote:You see, I know that you are lying on this Ben, as the most charitable in the US, is religious people, who again tend to be people on the right

So your view on leftist incompetent policies, does not then mean right wing people do not care about people on health. They simple do not agree with you on how help people should be provided to those that require medical health

Now I will give you the opportunity to admit that you lied for the sake of dishonesty, to further your own political warped agenda

Over to you

Actually no, I can provide endless examples of American conservatives saying health care isn't a right and you shouldn't get free care if you can't afford to pay.

Charity doesn't work. It's unreliable, particularly when the economy goes bad and people give less just when need goes up.

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:

Thor wrote:You see, I know that you are lying on this Ben, as the most charitable in the US, is religious people, who again tend to be people on the right

So your view on leftist incompetent policies, does not then mean right wing people do not care about people on health. They simple do not agree with you on how help people should be provided to those that require medical health

Now I will give you the opportunity to admit that you lied for the sake of dishonesty, to further your own political warped agenda

Over to you

Actually no, I can provide endless examples of American conservatives saying health care isn't a right and you shouldn't get free care if you can't afford to pay.

Charity doesn't work. It's unreliable, particularly when the economy goes bad and people give less just when need goes up.

Absurd reasoning

Hence does that mean they do not care about people based on health?

No

It means they do not agree with how that system should be on health

Do you see how you again continue to lie?

So you now claim charity does not work, even though its helped millions of people get out of poverty and have access to health?

Its the one thing that continues to work, when an economy goes wrong

It's the one thing that tanks right along with the economy:



Note the dip during recessions. When the going gets rough, the right focus on themselves - that's practically the definition of being conservative.

Government-run health care is far less expensive and far less cruel than what we have here in America, where a TV series can be based on the premise of a high school teacher who turns to selling drugs because of how much it's going to cost to treat his cancer.

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:It's the one thing that tanks right along with the economy:



Note the dip during recessions. When the going gets rough, the right focus on themselves - that's practically the definition of being conservative.

Government-run health care is far less expensive and far less cruel than what we have here in America, where a TV series can be based on the premise of a high school teacher who turns to selling drugs because of how much it's going to cost to treat his cancer.

Is that the best you can do, show a dip?

Does it show people still continued to give to charities?

Yes

Your views on what health care is the best is irrelevant to what you claim on the right not caring, when in fact they certainly do care on health

You again try to get out of a poor lie you claimed, because you have been conditioned to believe this is the case.

I admit when I am wrong, why cannot you do the same?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Who is most likely to vote for the party who promises to put more money into the NHS? Those who use the NHS the most, that's who.

The NHS is a flawed unworkable system, hence people who vote to put money into this are not understanding why it is unworkable

Its the only system in the world, that nobody else has taken up

That tells you everything about how flawed it really is

That's a different issue. I'm talking about why people vote the way they do.

College-educated people vote left more reliably than people with no college education. The poor always vote for conservatives because they claim they can bring jobs back (they can't).

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's a different issue. I'm talking about why people vote the way they do.

College-educated people vote left more reliably than people with no college education. The poor always vote for conservatives because they claim they can bring jobs back (they can't).

Do they?

Show me how they vote on age ranges and how this is consistant throughout their lives?

Well contrary to what you believe capitalism, has continually helped bring people out of poverty

Socialism, on the other hand never has

The NHS worked fine for me when I was ill. The treatment was speedy and thorough, and it worked. The only problem I can see is with routine appointments with a consultant.

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's a different issue. I'm talking about why people vote the way they do.

College-educated people vote left more reliably than people with no college education. The poor always vote for conservatives because they claim they can bring jobs back (they can't).

Are you saying that poorer people are more likely to be right wing than more well off people? Not that a college education guarantees a bigger income.

Raggamuffin wrote:

~THE Ben Reilly~ wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's a different issue. I'm talking about why people vote the way they do.

College-educated people vote left more reliably than people with no college education. The poor always vote for conservatives because they claim they can bring jobs back (they can't).

Are you saying that poorer people are more likely to be right wing than more well off people? Not that a college education guarantees a bigger income.

A college education tends to correlate with higher income, a lack of education correlates strongly with lower income and quite strongly with conservatism.

Trump's strongest support comes from uneducated white men in the South. Educated white men from the South support Trump less.

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you saying that poorer people are more likely to be right wing than more well off people? Not that a college education guarantees a bigger income.

A college education tends to correlate with higher income, a lack of education correlates strongly with lower income and quite strongly with conservatism.

Trump's strongest support comes from uneducated white men in the South. Educated white men from the South support Trump less.

Again


Show me how they vote on age ranges and how this is consistant throughout their lives?

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you saying that poorer people are more likely to be right wing than more well off people? Not that a college education guarantees a bigger income.

A college education tends to correlate with higher income, a lack of education correlates strongly with lower income and quite strongly with conservatism.

Trump's strongest support comes from uneducated white men in the South. Educated white men from the South support Trump less.

Does that mean you agree or disagree with Quill?

Then there is the reference to "real cash". This brings in the real motive of the right...self interest and acquisition of wealth.

nicko wrote:Green from me Didge,  You put it better than I could.

Thanks mate,. have a green back

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Young people have generally always been lefties anyway. It's their thing.

Yeah, until they start earning real cash, having kids and getting responsibilities.  Then it all changes because they realise they and their families come first, not some idealistic crusade the herd run with.

Makes me laugh when you see these kids bleating on about how they didn't vote in the referendum because nobody told them about what it all entailed   They had months and months to do so.  It was only when the stink started they realised they suddenly want to be a part of it the revolution and should have got their lazy arses to the poll station.  Well, tough fucking titters.

This is such myth. If people changed their voting patterns en masse when married with kids then we'd never have a Labour government, yet the parties are usually pretty close in most elections. Some do as you say, of course, but a hell of lot do not. Georgraphy seems to far more of an indicator.

And Quill is absolutely right. What you're saying is that those who do change their views politically do become more selfish. Growing wanting to help the unfortunate, ensure everyone gets decent and free or affordable healtg care, gets at least a living wage etc... then switching to a point where their chief concerns are not paying too much tax and deciding who does and doesn't deserve help.

Eilzel wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Yeah, until they start earning real cash, having kids and getting responsibilities.  Then it all changes because they realise they and their families come first, not some idealistic crusade the herd run with.

Makes me laugh when you see these kids bleating on about how they didn't vote in the referendum because nobody told them about what it all entailed   They had months and months to do so.  It was only when the stink started they realised they suddenly want to be a part of it the revolution and should have got their lazy arses to the poll station.  Well, tough fucking titters.

This is such myth. If people changed their voting patterns en masse when married with kids then we'd never have a Labour government, yet the parties are usually pretty close in most elections. Some do as you say, of course, but a hell of lot do not. Georgraphy seems to far more of an indicator.

And Quill is absolutely right. What you're saying is that those who do change their views politically do become more selfish. Growing wanting to help the unfortunate, ensure everyone gets decent and free or affordable healtg care, gets at least a living wage etc... then switching to a point where their chief concerns are not paying too much tax and deciding who does and doesn't deserve help.

Horseshit, as again those politically right, more so religious, are more charitable.

Again where the left always get this wrong is through a warped and twisted view on how the right think differently on health care systems. It does not mean they care any less and is a constant perpetual lie often spread by the left

At no point in history, have we seen the right reverse free health care in Europe.

This is why now people are waking up to the bullshit you and Quill costantly spread

The sad part is because of these lies, they are shifting to far right

When will you learn that your attempts to polarize people through lies, based on political beliefs, ends up having the opposite effect?