the left reveals itself and its anti democracy stance....EVIL

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:



Spoken like a true little brainwashed Corbynite ha ha

Merkel Conservative?

Based on what?

She has lost just about every Conservative ally, because there is nothing Conservative about her policies

See how the left engineer a lie again to pursue their warped and hateful agendas?

So you ignore the problem of mass immigration at its very core, the problems from the countries where they are leaving and instead blame this now on the rich, what a deluded silly little boy you are.

The reason they leave is down to human rights abuses, war, crime, and poverty. All of which should be tackled at this core. Yet the deluded socialists dont see the real problems, and fail to understand it has been and still is capitalism that gets people out of poverty. Socialism does not get people out of poverty, but maintains them in poverty. Or do you need another lesson in history?

You then say the left want to treat people equally?

Canada introduces a law on compelled speech and makes it a hate crime to misgender someone, based on the made up crap around gender pronouns. That is from the left.

This law around migration criticism being a hate crime is from the left and jumped upon by authoritarian natons, who think that pushing the problem onto other nations, will resolve it. When it will not.

No we are attacking those who live by identity politics, that are driving more and more people to the Far right, because they simple will not listen. Think they are morally and intellectually superior and still stupidly never learn from history, following a flawed system, that has only led to millions dying

Marxism

How about you start to learn to grow up and think for yourself and stop being a sheep to idiots like Corbyn

You ready to cut those strings yet, puppet?

You honestly think 'The Left', who generally care about things like affordable healthcare and education and worker's rights, are the ones AT THE TOP trying to do things to allow greater movements of people without criticism?

Ask yourself WHO BENEFITS MOST from all this?

But you won't. Because you've allowed yourself to become a puppet. Keep watching your youtube videos about fringe problems didge. Let the world burn around you

Andy wrote:I saw this thread yesterday on one of the few times I have looked in, Foul stalks my every post actively looking for a reason to ban me - he gives the impression he wants to run the site as his own fiefdom.
Like a number of others, it is the most vociferous posters and politically biased mods who run and ruin forums.
This site  has increasily drifted to the right, where the views of the left are either shot down or silenced.
I applaud Wolfie, Quill Les and Lurker for their resilience, but I cannot be bothered, not in great health at present, and disappointed that Ben and Eddie have allowed it to lurch to the right unchecked.
Why not go for game set and match and appoint Dodgy Thor as a mod, that will guarantee to stifle the last vestiges to debate.
Then this place will become the same as other rw sit
s, devoid of debate and even more devoid of posters.

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

 Stuck for an answer?

Still waiting for you to answer mine, based on your claims..

How many African nations support women's rights and homosexual rights?

The above by you is inherantly hilarious

I suggest you watch

Andy wrote:I saw this thread yesterday on one of the few times I have looked in, Foul stalks my every post actively looking for a reason to ban me - he gives the impression he wants to run the site as his own fiefdom.
Like a number of others, it is the most vociferous posters and politically biased mods who run and ruin forums.
This site  has increasily drifted to the right, where the views of the left are either shot down or silenced.
I applaud Wolfie, Quill Les and Lurker for their resilience, but I cannot be bothered, not in great health at present, and disappointed that Ben and Eddie have allowed it to lurch to the right unchecked.
Why not go for game set and match and appoint Dodgy Thor as a mod, that will guarantee to stifle the last vestiges to debate.
Then this place will become the same as other rw sites, devoid of debate and even more devoid of posters.

Eilzel wrote:

Andy wrote:I saw this thread yesterday on one of the few times I have looked in, Foul stalks my every post actively looking for a reason to ban me - he gives the impression he wants to run the site as his own fiefdom.
Like a number of others, it is the most vociferous posters and politically biased mods who run and ruin forums.
This site  has increasily drifted to the right, where the views of the left are either shot down or silenced.
I applaud Wolfie, Quill Les and Lurker for their resilience, but I cannot be bothered, not in great health at present, and disappointed that Ben and Eddie have allowed it to lurch to the right unchecked.
Why not go for game set and match and appoint Dodgy Thor as a mod, that will guarantee to stifle the last vestiges to debate.
Then this place will become the same as other rw sites, devoid of debate and even more devoid of posters.

It is tiring, and I'm mostly ignoring the endless procession of stories and videos and radical feminists and trans activists means to paint the Left as one thing because they are just mind numbingly boring.

We have a president/leader of the free world who is one bad mood from going to war; a British government who can't agree on shit yet are supposed to take us to a glorious future after crashing us out of the EU; and global warming and pollution in general going by the way side while the mega rich get away with literal murder all over the place - meanwhile the Right wants to scream at the Left because a few college kids want to be called Ze.

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Andy wrote:I saw this thread yesterday on one of the few times I have looked in, Foul stalks my every post actively looking for a reason to ban me - he gives the impression he wants to run the site as his own fiefdom.
Like a number of others, it is the most vociferous posters and politically biased mods who run and ruin forums.
This site  has increasily drifted to the right, where the views of the left are either shot down or silenced.
I applaud Wolfie, Quill Les and Lurker for their resilience, but I cannot be bothered, not in great health at present, and disappointed that Ben and Eddie have allowed it to lurch to the right unchecked.
Why not go for game set and match and appoint Dodgy Thor as a mod, that will guarantee to stifle the last vestiges to debate.
Then this place will become the same as other rw sites, devoid of debate and even more devoid of posters.

It is tiring, and I'm mostly ignoring the endless procession of stories and videos and radical feminists and trans activists means to paint the Left as one thing because they are just mind numbingly boring.

We have a president/leader of the free world who is one bad mood from going to war; a British government who can't agree on shit yet are supposed to take us to a glorious future after crashing us out of the EU; and global warming and pollution in general going by the way side while the mega rich get away with literal murder all over the place - meanwhile the Right wants to scream at the Left because a few college kids want to be called Ze.

Its not mean to pain any picture, but to show a real concern that for one science is being trumped by ideological views and put into teaching further generations.

Of course you do not want to hear the truth Eizel, because you do not want to do anything about this. You are happy that are education system is being eroded with poor ideas that have no scientific bases. If evolution was under attack. Which is now on the way through gener ideas and feminism, I doubt you will sit back any longer not saying anything.

Again with the sterotypes. Trump is no nearer from going to war, than Ghandi. This is simple again the left getting things wrong, when Trump cares about money, and thus would never go to war.

Yes the present British governement is shit, but the opposition is even worse and here we go again with what the left always do. Never see any fault in thesmselves but look to cause a class war and blame the rich. Well what happened to the middle class and rich in Russia when the Communists took over Eilzel? You made the same hateful arguments that were made back then, with no care or consequence you are heading down the same very path, that we see countless die.

That is stupidity at its best. The right and left need to work for a brighter future, but constantly blaming the rich, for how capitalism gets people out of poverty, shows again the left have not learnt a damn thing from history.

So some of us with many liberal values, more than many on the left today, want to stop the world descending into madness and another global war, because the Far right is gaining support in Europe and yet again you are blind to this. You then pander to Andy, who just bitched about a fellow Mod, and you said nothing at this, or tell him the reasons why he was placed into the basement

wow

You just lost all moral standing with that

Have a good day, am off to work

veya_victaous wrote:

the fool is so delude he thinks some kids calling themselves 'zhe' or whatever the fuck, is more important than the fact the RW is literally killing the planet for profit... he is so brainwashed (and boring) that he literally considers some teenage fad more important than the ecological fate of the planet

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:

Its not mean to pain any picture, but to show a real concern that for one science is being trumped by ideological views and put into teaching further generations.

Of course you do not want to hear the truth Eizel, because you do not want to do anything about this. You are happy that are education system is being eroded with poor ideas that have no scientific bases. If evolution was under attack. Which is now on the way through gener ideas and feminism, I doubt you will sit back any longer not saying anything.

Again with the sterotypes. Trump is no nearer from going to war, than Ghandi. This is simple again the left getting things wrong, when Trump cares about money, and thus would never go to war.

Yes the present British governement is shit, but the opposition is even worse and here we go again with what the left always do. Never see any fault in thesmselves but look to cause a class war and blame the rich. Well what happened to the middle class and rich in Russia when the Communists took over Eilzel? You made the same hateful arguments that were made back then, with no care or consequence you are heading down the same very path, that we see countless die.

That is stupidity at its best. The right and left need to work for a brighter future, but constantly blaming the rich, for how capitalism gets people out of poverty, shows again the left have not learnt a damn thing from history.

So some of us with many liberal values, more than many on the left today, want to stop the world descending into madness and another global war, because the Far right is gaining support in Europe and yet again you are blind to this. You then pander to Andy, who just bitched about a fellow Mod, and you said nothing at this, or tell him the reasons why he was placed into the basement

wow

You just lost all moral standing with that

Have a good day, am off to work

You'll find far more topics started here being used by the Right attacking the Left than vice-versa. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it IS one sided. So who are the ones avoiding bringing people together? Of course, it benefits your ideological masters to carry on in such a way, so knock yourself out.

veya_victaous wrote:even in Russia their were poor muppets like thor that mindless defended their rich master without thought or reason, just brainwashed with same simplistic propaganda that has been used for millennia.

the fool is so delude he thinks some kids calling themselves 'zhe' or whatever the fuck, is more important than the fact the RW is literally killing the planet for profit... he is so brainwashed (and boring) that he literally considers some teenage fad more important than the ecological fate of the planet

thrive on hating pointless shit all you want, but stop voting for cunts that are selling out the people and the planet in the name of the almighty dollar

Lord Foul wrote:true  didge, but I do happen to think the tech tax is fair, and as for those non paying compnies....I'm only talking about making them pay what they should  NOT more....wasnt it google who made x hundred million and paid a paltry tax bill?  they certainly didnt pay the 20% corporation tax they should have, and remember that tax is a tax on profit, i.e earnings, not turn over

Lord Foul wrote:and also didge, you make the common mistake when talking about the "tax hit"  and that is that you fail to factor in "disposable income"

take the bloke of a wage just below the tax level, say 12000 a year and lets pretend he doesnt pay NI to keep it simple...
that makes him 1000 a month
so he has living costs of at LEAST 600 a month (for a reasonable standard of accomodation)
food costs of a further 200 (and that will be a basic standard of food)
energy costs of 200
THEN he has other necessities, washing clothing and transport


doesnt leave much for disposable income ( lifes little luxuries) does it?


now look at the bloke on 1 million a year 500,000 times more than the person on 12,000?


he pays around 50% of his earnings in tax and NI

so he has 500,000 of income per year

are you seriously telling me his accommodation is going to cost him nearly 25,000 per month
and more ludicrously are you seriously going to tell me his shopping bill for BASICS...NOT friparies is going to be  8,300
or that he is going to burn 3,800 quids worth of energy heating his pile and keeping the lights on???

Lord Foul wrote:I would agree that a tax system needs to be fair and transparent to all, uniformly applied and enforced.

This is one reason I approve of the tories raising the tax threshold as they have been doing, that seems entirely fair, however more needs to be done to enforce better wages.

and this is where the EU seriously needs to "do one"

see, before the EU, quite a lot of our industry was subsidised to some extent and of course the nationalised industries repaid and with interest that subsidy, DONT EVER beleive that clap trap about the coal industry being unprofitable, nor the steel industry. They paid millions at the time into govt coffers. the subsidies however went to ensure that the workers were paid a decent wage...eventually..... after much union action.

what happened subsequently with the EU's no subsidy for your industry rules, was that that "subsidy" has turned through various stages into the shameful necessity of "working tax credits"
and the govt effectively gets naff all back from industries. but rather pays what would have been a subsidy directly to the worker. All the while the greedy "fat cats" profit from this via low wages.

why? because they can now afford to offer low wages...whilst the nationalised industries were directly subsidised and offered relatively good wages, ALL employers had to follow suit, or folks chose to work where the money was......now, they all piss in the same pot.....

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and also didge, you make the common mistake when talking about the "tax hit"  and that is that you fail to factor in "disposable income"

take the bloke of a wage just below the tax level, say 12000 a year and lets pretend he doesnt pay NI to keep it simple...
that makes him 1000 a month
so he has living costs of at LEAST 600 a month (for a reasonable standard of accomodation)
food costs of a further 200 (and that will be a basic standard of food)
energy costs of 200
THEN he has other necessities, washing clothing and transport


doesnt leave much for disposable income ( lifes little luxuries) does it?


now look at the bloke on 1 million a year 500,000 times more than the person on 12,000?


he pays around 50% of his earnings in tax and NI

so he has 500,000 of income per year

are you seriously telling me his accommodation is going to cost him nearly 25,000 per month
and more ludicrously are you seriously going to tell me his shopping bill for BASICS...NOT friparies is going to be  8,300
or that he is going to burn 3,800 quids worth of energy heating his pile and keeping the lights on???

What has his costs have to do with anything, when he already pays far 500,000 times more than the person on 12,000?

He is part of the reason the person on 12,000 does not have to pay any taxes

I am not telling you anything about accomadation. It has no bearing

these things DO have a bearing, particularly on what is called "relative poverty", which could better be understood as "perceived poverty)

The point should be on what is fair, when this person already contributes more a year than many people combined.

That means his tax alone funds many people to have benefits and what does he get in return for his taxes?

So your view makes little sense, when already half his money goes into the system, of which he is not ever really going to benefit off. He will no doubt send his children to private schools, have private health care etc.

well unless you consider the idea of the rich having access to a superior health care system a good way to go, perhaps we should just take away that option...a one tier system, equally accessible to all, with the same standard of care to prince and pauper alike??

So what does he get out of this return?

why should he get anything out of it, beyond what the common man does, paying those taxes is his duty. whilst no commie, dont forget the socialist bit of me didge...FROM each according to his ability TO each according to his needs.

I think 50% is the limit and no more for only those over 1 million

There is no reason they should pay any more than they do. When they already pay far more than the rest

Its like I said, as to what is fair. They pay far more than what is fair, above and beyond what is fair

Lord Foul wrote:
these things DO have a bearing, particularly on what is called "relative poverty", which could better be understood as "perceived poverty)


well unless you consider the idea of the rich having access to a superior health care system a good way to go, perhaps we should just take away that option...a one tier system, equally accessible to all, with the same standard of care to prince and pauper alike??



why should he get anything out of it, beyond what the common man does, paying those taxes is his duty. whilst no commie, dont forget the socialist bit of me didge...FROM each according to his ability TO each according to his needs.

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I would agree that a tax system needs to be fair and transparent to all, uniformly applied and enforced.

This is one reason I approve of the tories raising the tax threshold as they have been doing, that seems entirely fair, however more needs to be done to enforce better wages.

and this is where the EU seriously needs to "do one"

see, before the EU, quite a lot of our industry was subsidised to some extent and of course the nationalised industries repaid and with interest that subsidy, DONT EVER beleive that clap trap about the coal industry being unprofitable, nor the steel industry. They paid millions at the time into govt coffers. the subsidies however went to ensure that the workers were paid a decent wage...eventually..... after much union action.

what happened subsequently with the EU's no subsidy for your industry rules, was that that "subsidy" has turned through various stages into the shameful necessity of "working tax credits"
and the govt effectively gets naff all back from industries. but rather pays what would have been a subsidy directly to the worker. All the while the greedy "fat cats" profit from this via low wages.

why? because they can now afford to offer low wages...whilst the nationalised industries were directly subsidised and offered relatively good wages, ALL employers had to follow suit, or folks chose to work where the money was......now, they all piss in the same pot.....

But how do you enforce better to wages, when this will have a detrimental effect on smaller buisness, who really only can afford to pay staff minimum wages? Enforcing wages onto smaller companies could see many have to fold or sell on and is not a good way to develope buisnesses.

What I suggest would be better, is to help bring down the cost of living.

Unless you can think of a way to enforce wages, without effectivelly ruining many small buisnesses?

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:

But how do you enforce better to wages, when this will have a detrimental effect on smaller buisness, who really only can afford to pay staff minimum wages? Enforcing wages onto smaller companies could see many have to fold or sell on and is not a good way to develope buisnesses.

What I suggest would be better, is to help bring down the cost of living.

Unless you can think of a way to enforce wages, without effectivelly ruining many small buisnesses?

now THIS is a thorney one, simply becasue the cost of living is already for some things very low, and yet others very high

so compared to when I was a child , food is for next to nothing , or at least ingredients for good sound food are.....

fuel costs are ridiculous
energy costs are about par if not somewhat higher

part of teh problem is folks want too much "stuff" nowadays

when I was a kid there would be probably only TWO electronic devices in the house a radio and (if you were either rich or had a clever dad) a telly.

nowadays theres radios tvs in every room...even in the bloody bathroom fgs , tablets computers and mobile phones enough to equip a small army and all "must haves"  

one of the best ways to bring down costs of living I suspect would be to build a new generation of council housing, (could even be prefabs or even "3d printed concrete" structures) and set a suitably low rent, sufficient that it repays the costs over 50 years (say) further the costs could be kept low by seizing land held out of use in land banking schemes by means of an emergency powers act. if you own a piece of land that is classed as building land (under the land classification scheme) and you havnt done anything with it inside 5 years, you lose it....

this would drive down rents across the board, and any landlords selling up as a result could be compelled to offer the local authority first dibs at "compulsary purchase" prices. or at the even lower "with sitting tennant " price.

this would also have the beneficial effect of reducing by a large degree the upward pressure on house prices in general.

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:
these things DO have a bearing, particularly on what is called "relative poverty", which could better be understood as "perceived poverty)


well unless you consider the idea of the rich having access to a superior health care system a good way to go, perhaps we should just take away that option...a one tier system, equally accessible to all, with the same standard of care to prince and pauper alike??



why should he get anything out of it, beyond what the common man does, paying those taxes is his duty. whilst no commie, dont forget the socialist bit of me didge...FROM each according to his ability TO each according to his needs.

I understand relative poverty, which is only a concern, where its too high between people living in close proximity. As it tends to lead to higher crime.

They have earned their money and if there is a market out there, then good luck to them. They have earned it and neither I nor you should deny them this. Again this is about what they earn and you thinking they should pay more into a system they basically get little out of and many people get plenty out of

How is that even fair?

Its not, as they carry the greater burden of responsibility to others in society. When they are neither their parents, wives, husbands, children etc

The notion of common man, is blatantly silly, when already they provide plenty for others and basically get nothing in return.

If they want to pay more into charities, of which they generally do. Then they should be allowed to do so. Not have someone else take more money from them, based off no fair reason. What they earn after tax, is theirs to choose what to do with and yet you want more

They have given plenty and get the least out of this doing so

Hence its a completely unfair system, where the burden is placed on the rich

I mean what then would you do, if the rich moved out?

Lord Foul wrote:
yeah, generally to inveigle a tax concession charitable donations are tax deductible fgs.


but, non the less they do indeed, some of them to a vast degree that quite frankly I dont think any tax system can actually cope with....like the Gates foundation etc....

some one asked me what i would do if I won the 186 million quid roll over on the euro lottery, and that really made me think....cos

even after making sure that close family were OK that amount spent would be replaced by simple interest at a few % inside a year or two, personally I'd spend an amount which although a lot for me would in the scheme of things be insignificant....

I wouldnt move house...I LIKE it here, or if I did it would be to somewhere just as modest, but perhaps a bit more rural still..... a bit more woodland maybe....a new motor of a practical sort not something expensive shiny and flat...god they are uncomfortable when you are 64.......I wouldnt even buy a new shotgun, I'm kinda used to mine and I can actually hit things with it.......a few bits and bobs of electronic components to play with and I'd be as happy as a pig in S**t.....I dont need any more tools thank you......

so what would I do with the thick end of 186 million.....well, I thought about it, and thought some more, slept on it, was bugged by it for days.....

then I thought .....I KNOW

I'd buy.........some big pile some stately home for a couple of million with nice grounds then (and THIS is the unusual, for MANY reasons, thing) I'd gather some fellow druidic practicioners, suitably screened (DBS and all that) and found (and THIS is the First unusual thing) a druidic monastery. selecting first older middle aged and able bodied seniors, with the intent to provide what is known as "retreat" be that for life or just a few months if after a while the person wished to become a permanent fixture they could (under what terms and conditions I havnt yet fully worked out) the idea being that I would not take long to have a dedicated core of individuals that could then provide support and care for the now aging seniors. recruitment would be continued with the aim of getting a self sufficient community of folks that could then provide at little (or at least much reduced) costs, care to the elderly and terminal, along with help and respite for the jaded and depressed, driven not by profit but by compassion and serenity. Such an organisation would of course still look to charitable donations and "lay helpers" and of course the medical professionals as well.

within its walls the druidic rote would apply (basically, dont be a dick) and whilst all those within would be welcome at those druidic rites open to the laity, there would be no requirement to do so, and ministers of all faiths would be not only allowed, but encouraged to attend those who wished such.
If an older couple wished to join then there would be no problem, nor of course would there be a problem with gay couples
couples with dependant children would not be allowed to become other than "lay helpers" and would not be allowed to live in the monastic setting, since clearly THEIR focus should and MUST be on the children. Nor would there be any idea of a druidic school, religious indoctrination is not what we want....you are either called or not.

Lord Foul wrote:The outraged howls of anguish from the triggered leftys maketh me laugh...

I cant remember posting ANYTHING that supports these MNC's etc, and None of you have any idea of my personal view on many important issues, although to be fair when I DO post a POV, it is conveniently ignored by the likes of wolfie and veya if it doesnt fit their image of me....

I'd love nothing better than to throw a clog in the spokes of the petrol masters (indeed the energy maters as a whole, not to mention making those who SHOULD be paying their tax actually pay it (hint, if we did that...there would be no problems with the NHS, for a start) AND I would tax firms who have used tech to replace workers with a "tech levy" used to boost social care and welfare

BUT every time I post about this it just gets ignored.. cos of course you WANT me to be a corporatist shill...and I keep refusing to be so...

how about

make ALL those companies pay their full whack
stop the loophole of "fake loans" from parent companies abroad which allow tax free removal of billions from our economy  If its earned here ...Its TAXED here....

how about a 5% levy on tech in any company, when it can be shown that its replacing a worker

by tech , i mean if its run by computers/embedded microcontrollers and such like

how about repealing part p to the extent that 12-24V systems can be wired up in your own home , by anyone with the ability, the only rules being
1 it must be done to the not unreasonable regulations (wire size and fusing being the wholey, and almost only important issues at these voltages)
and
2 fuck even that up (risk of fire) and you go to jail

then allow folks to invent their own solar systems

but this requires that people become less risk averse..uh oh.....

how about using that tech tax and the first few years windfall from making st**bucks etc pay their fair share, to provide free one for one like for like replacement electric for fossil fuel vehicles for everyone. Then remove all fossil fueled vehicles from the road.

How about banning ANY flight that is not at least 90% occupied from taking off....

how about introducing STRICT laws on food and drink purity...banning most "non nutritional" chemicals (MSG for one) and unnecessary "other stuff" (like palm oil as only ONE example)

oh I could go on...but in any case it would be pointless

cos of course you will now whine that these measures will cripple the economy.....

Thor wrote:There he goes again blaming the rich and failing to see why the Far right gain continued support

Again this is the problem with the left that they fail to see problems staring them right in front of their faces from their side

The left fail and continue to simple not listen and it will be to their peril

Andy wrote:I saw this thread yesterday on one of the few times I have looked in, Foul stalks my every post actively looking for a reason to ban me - he gives the impression he wants to run the site as his own fiefdom.
Like a number of others, it is the most vociferous posters and politically biased mods who run and ruin forums.
This site  has increasily drifted to the right, where the views of the left are either shot down or silenced.
I applaud Wolfie, Quill Les and Lurker for their resilience, but I cannot be bothered, not in great health at present, and disappointed that Ben and Eddie have allowed it to lurch to the right unchecked.
Why not go for game set and match and appoint Dodgy Thor as a mod, that will guarantee to stifle the last vestiges to debate.
Then this place will become the same as other rw sites, devoid of debate and even more devoid of posters.

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:

Thor wrote:There he goes again blaming the rich and failing to see why the Far right gain continued support

Again this is the problem with the left that they fail to see problems staring them right in front of their faces from their side

The left fail and continue to simple not listen and it will be to their peril

So you're going to come out as pro-starving children, eh? It's a bold stance, and while I have to disagree, I must appreciate how bold you are.

Thor wrote:

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:

Thor wrote:There he goes again blaming the rich and failing to see why the Far right gain continued support

Again this is the problem with the left that they fail to see problems staring them right in front of their faces from their side

The left fail and continue to simple not listen and it will be to their peril

So you're going to come out as pro-starving children, eh? It's a bold stance, and while I have to disagree, I must appreciate how bold you are.

Cathy newman alert

How am I pro-starving children?

Never made any such claim, but because you are a lying leftist idiot, you resort to lies

When did you sell your property and give all your wages to the starving?

You see this is all you dumb lefties can do, make up bullshit and think you are the only ones that care for the starving. Whillst you do fuck all about it and blame others for this

Again failing to understand the core reason why this is haappenning

Its why more and more people simple are fed up with the left

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:

I don't have enough property to make a difference. Someone who has 10 houses and 4 private planes and multiple yachts could make a difference, but they choose themselves over starving children.

I don't know how they justify that, so I won't pretend to know.

I just know that when lefties are in charge, we manage to help the starving kids AND still have rich people.

Maybe the answer you're avoiding is more complicated than you'd like it to be.

Thor wrote:

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:

I don't have enough property to make a difference. Someone who has 10 houses and 4 private planes and multiple yachts could make a difference, but they choose themselves over starving children.

I don't know how they justify that, so I won't pretend to know.

I just know that when lefties are in charge, we manage to help the starving kids AND still have rich people.

Maybe the answer you're avoiding is more complicated than you'd like it to be.

So whilst you think you do not have enough, you certainly could give, but think others should do in your stead?

That is being two faced

These people already do make a difference and already donate countless money to charities

I know when lefties are in charge millions die, generally the middle class and the rich, which then has a knock on effect with the poor. They then end up starving even more

Its again Capitalism that  has helped more people get out of poverty, more than anyone else

You could afford to give more, but think this should be slaced onto others

And we know what happens when the left are in charge

The rich are either eradicated or leave

Thus in each case, the poor then further suffer, based on the flawed mentality of the left

Again my point goes back to what I stated to Lord Foul

Why should they give so much more to others?

Why should they, when people do not want to help themselves?

We know countless foriegn aid is misused and abused by countries governements.

So why see that money go to bad and not good?

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:

Thor wrote:


So whilst you think you do not have enough, you certainly could give, but think others should do in your stead?

That is being two faced

These people already do make a difference and already donate countless money to charities

I know when lefties are in charge millions die, generally the middle class and the rich, which then has a knock on effect with the poor. They then end up starving even more

Its again Capitalism that  has helped more people get out of poverty, more than anyone else

You could afford to give more, but think this should be slaced onto others

And we know what happens when the left are in charge

The rich are either eradicated or leave

Thus in each case, the poor then further suffer, based on the flawed mentality of the left

Again my point goes back to what I stated to Lord Foul

Why should they give so much more to others?

Why should they, when people do not want to help themselves?

We know countless foriegn aid is misused and abused by countries governements.

So why see that money go to bad and not good?

Dude, I'm not against capitalism, don't want the government making my TV any more than I want private industry in charge of my health care

*~[THE Ben Reilly]~* wrote:There needs to be a balance, and right now, I think that the system is over-balanced in favor of the wealthy.

Used to be that in the U.S., if you graduated from high school you could get a job that would eventually enable you to own a small house and take the occasional vacation.

Then, later, you had to have a college degree to get that.

Now, even college degrees can be worthless in the marketplace.

There's no reason for a few people to control the overwhelming majority of the money.

The rich have to solve the problems because they have the power to do so.

And they've been bailed out too, just look at 2008.

gelico wrote:
Ian McKellon
Harry Styles
Russell Brand
Lilly Allen
Gary Lineker
J K Rowling
Hugh Grant

and the list goes on,,,,,all left wing,,,,,,all very preachy about what we should all be doing,,,,,all trying to outdo each other with their virtue signalling and yet,,,,,,

how many of them have given up even just one of their many properties to help someone else??

Anyone know?

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:
Ian McKellon
Harry Styles
Russell Brand
Lilly Allen
Gary Lineker
J K Rowling
Hugh Grant

and the list goes on,,,,,all left wing,,,,,,all very preachy about what we should all be doing,,,,,all trying to outdo each other with their virtue signalling and yet,,,,,,

how many of them have given up even just one of their many properties to help someone else??

Anyone know?

Where does this idea that anyone rich and LW should give up their property? How much difference would any of those mentioned actually make by giving up their homes? I'm willing to bet all have and do give to causes though.

And there's nothing wrong with preaching about good causes you believe in.

This was gets me: rich people who talk liberal politics are condemned by the Right for being 'preachy' and accused of being hypocrites; while the likes of Trump are applauded by the Right for saying it 'how it is', despite being rude, selfish and often just nasty.

Wtf is up with that?

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:
Ian McKellon
Harry Styles
Russell Brand
Lilly Allen
Gary Lineker
J K Rowling
Hugh Grant

and the list goes on,,,,,all left wing,,,,,,all very preachy about what we should all be doing,,,,,all trying to outdo each other with their virtue signalling and yet,,,,,,

how many of them have given up even just one of their many properties to help someone else??

Anyone know?

Where does this idea that anyone rich and LW should give up their property? How much difference would any of those mentioned actually make by giving up their homes? I'm willing to bet all have and do give to causes though.

And there's nothing wrong with preaching about good causes you believe in.

This was gets me: rich people who talk liberal politics are condemned by the Right for being 'preachy' and accused of being hypocrites; while the likes of Trump are applauded by the Right for saying it 'how it is', despite being rude, selfish and often just nasty.

Wtf is up with that?

hi les,

in response to your first paragraph, ben wrote:

''I don't have enough property to make a difference. Someone who has 10 houses and 4 private planes and multiple yachts could make a difference, but they choose themselves over starving children''.

which is why i mentioned that list.  If you're going to preach to others about what they should do then lead by example, say I.  He also said

''I just know that when lefties are in charge, we manage to help the starving kids AND still have rich people.''


which tends to suggest that there were no poor people under obamas rule,,,,,

the way to help people is to create opportunities which is what trump seems to be doing (especially for the poor black communities),,,,,not calling them victims and giving them a bit of money so they always stay the same

it's not that celebs shouldn't preach to the masses about what they believe in, how we should all be more tolerant of immigrants and how we should not moan about having to share scant resources etc etc, but they themselves should certainly be leading by example and sharing what they have also, don't you think,,,,,otherwise all we have is empty hypocrisy

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:

hi les,

in response to your first paragraph, ben wrote:

''I don't have enough property to make a difference. Someone who has 10 houses and 4 private planes and multiple yachts could make a difference, but they choose themselves over starving children''.

which is why i mentioned that list.  If you're going to preach to others about what they should do then lead by example, say I.  He also said

''I just know that when lefties are in charge, we manage to help the starving kids AND still have rich people.''


which tends to suggest that there were no poor people under obamas rule,,,,,

the way to help people is to create opportunities which is what trump seems to be doing (especially for the poor black communities),,,,,not calling them victims and giving them a bit of money so they always stay the same

it's not that celebs shouldn't preach to the masses about what they believe in, how we should all be more tolerant of immigrants and how we should not moan about having to share scant resources etc etc, but they themselves should certainly be leading by example and sharing what they have also, don't you think,,,,,otherwise all we have is empty hypocrisy

Again, those rich people probably do give a lot to charity. Could they do more? Sure. Anyone super rich could do more. I don't personally think anyone need go as far as giving away houses though, and I don't think rich Lefties not doing while, while preaching what governments should do, is hypocritical.

probably??? possibly,,,,and why don't they do more then if they're able to? If it was RW celebs (cant think of any) preaching one thing while doing another i think you would find it so

It is bizarre to me that an expectation from you and others is that if someone says a lot about improving economic conditions for the poor they should give things away.

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:

hi les,

in response to your first paragraph, ben wrote:

''I don't have enough property to make a difference. Someone who has 10 houses and 4 private planes and multiple yachts could make a difference, but they choose themselves over starving children''.

which is why i mentioned that list.  If you're going to preach to others about what they should do then lead by example, say I.  He also said

''I just know that when lefties are in charge, we manage to help the starving kids AND still have rich people.''


which tends to suggest that there were no poor people under obamas rule,,,,,

the way to help people is to create opportunities which is what trump seems to be doing (especially for the poor black communities),,,,,not calling them victims and giving them a bit of money so they always stay the same

it's not that celebs shouldn't preach to the masses about what they believe in, how we should all be more tolerant of immigrants and how we should not moan about having to share scant resources etc etc, but they themselves should certainly be leading by example and sharing what they have also, don't you think,,,,,otherwise all we have is empty hypocrisy

Again, those rich people probably do give a lot to charity. Could they do more? Sure. Anyone super rich could do more. I don't personally think anyone need go as far as giving away houses though, and I don't think rich Lefties not doing while, while preaching what governments should do, is hypocritical.

probably???  possibly,,,,and why don't they do more then if they're able to?  If it was RW celebs (cant think of any) preaching one thing while doing another i think you would find it so

It is bizarre to me that an expectation from you and others is that if someone says a lot about improving economic conditions for the poor they should give things away.  

it's not about that though les, it's the preaching to others, (not the government) about what ''we all'' should all be doing when what they mean is 'I'm ok i'm telling YOU what you should be doing''

i'm RW i guess but if i were in a position to help change things for others then i most certainly would

i dont like hypocrisy though and when that is hiding under a cloak of supposed virtue it stinks

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:

it's not about that though les, it's the preaching to others, (not the government) about what ''we all'' should all be doing when what they mean is 'I'm ok i'm telling YOU what you should be doing''

i'm RW i guess but if i were in a position to help change things for others then i most certainly would

i dont like hypocrisy though and when that is hiding under a cloak of supposed virtue it stinks

I'm sorry Gels, but my feeling is that there is nothing wrong with trying to encourage people to do more. You and I have no idea how much people do do. I've never read or heard of any of those people pushing people to do things they themselves do not do on a regular basis - have you?

The term virtue signalling is almost a poison now, used to attack people for encouraging better actions - wtf.