FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages
The Leisure Hive Forum Index  Log in  Register
Question to Professor
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Leisure Hive Forum Index -> Current Affairs, History & Politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moderator General wrote:
Professor wrote:
If you believe in getting everyone off the streets, as B3 does, as I'm sure you do. As I do, how do you go about it if you can't afford to build or buy and all your housing cash is going on a relatively small amount of people being charged exorbitant sums in Central London?


There's a place in Central London called Buckingham Palace which strikes me as far too large for the pair of work-shy, tax-avoiding immigrants who live there.


On the other hand, it is pretty much solely responsible for millions of foreign tourists in London every year spending money on lots of small businesses. I'm sure Rome would like to use the Vatican for their homeless too. Won't happen, so let's address the issues, rather than moaning about the injustice of the world. The world is unjust, nothing you nor I nor anyone else can do is ever gonna change that. Che Guevara was as much a murderer as an idealist.

Still, if you want to go assassinate the Queen, I won't stand in your way. Equally, if you feel that strongly about it, stand for Parliament and see how many people actually vote for your abolish the monarchy party.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
RobFilth



Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 9013
Location: Rallying against Rani's Repetitive Rhubarb and Rubbish.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
Equally, if you feel that strongly about it, stand for Parliament and see how many people actually vote for your abolish the monarchy party.

I'd vote for them.
_________________


Rallying against Rani's Repetitive Rhubarb and Rubbish.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobFilth wrote:
Professor wrote:
Equally, if you feel that strongly about it, stand for Parliament and see how many people actually vote for your abolish the monarchy party.

I'd vote for them.


Indeed, and so would a few other hundred people.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Pex



Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: Paradise Towers

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
The world is unjust, nothing you nor I nor anyone else can do is ever gonna change that.


Well, it's lucky our ancestors didn't believe that when they were fighting for the Great Reform Bill and electing the post-war Labour government, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Though perhaps you're very rich or aristocratic, in which case you'd be having this conversation with yourself.
_________________
Coalition would mean Con policies, Con leadership by a Con party for a Con trick - Harold Wilson, October 1974
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Moderator General



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 1149
Location: City of the Damned

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
Moderator General wrote:
Professor wrote:
If we were to fund the drugs for everyone, then some other vital service would have to go to provide it.


Perhaps this money for cancer drugs could come from obscenely rich tax avoiders. What's your objection to that?


I have no objection.


So you admit you were talking shit when you said "some other vital service would have to go to provide it"?



Professor wrote:
Moderator General wrote:
Professor wrote:
If you believe in getting everyone off the streets, as B3 does, as I'm sure you do. As I do, how do you go about it if you can't afford to build or buy and all your housing cash is going on a relatively small amount of people being charged exorbitant sums in Central London?


There's a place in Central London called Buckingham Palace which strikes me as far too large for the pair of work-shy, tax-avoiding immigrants who live there.


On the other hand, it is pretty much solely responsible for millions of foreign tourists in London every year spending money on lots of small businesses.


Well, if it's bringing money in, it's clearly above morality. I'm sure crack-dealing doesn't hurt the sales of BMWs, and the war in Iraq must have done wonders for Haliburton's bottom line. Both good things in your opinion?


Professor wrote:
Won't happen, so let's address the issues, rather than moaning about the injustice of the world. The world is unjust, nothing you nor I nor anyone else can do is ever gonna change that.


You're on here all the time moaning about the injustices of the feckless poor parasitising the tax-payer, and how Cameron and Osborne's plans for work camps are a massive and necessary step forward in dealing with the injustices of the world. How come when someone suggests similar measures for feckless rich parasites, they're deluded idealists?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
Pex wrote:
Professor wrote:
It's asking them, seeing as they are living on government money, to live affordably.


Who says they're living on government money? They may have paid 30 years' NI contributions before being thrown on the scrapheap. Perhaps people who get big tax breaks are also living on government money? It's only fair to dictate to them how they should live too.


I don't claim the system is perfect. In fact I think it's been completely destroyed by the last 50 years worth of government. And consequently that is the system we have to get to work. At the moment it does not work.

Either that or tear it all down and start again. Call me once you have a plan to deal with 65 million people that won't cause interim pain and that won't go tits up within two months.


In fact, to qualify this statement. It's very doubtful that the welfare state has ever worked, or indeed that any state above tribal level in the history of the world has ever worked, as in building a stable, fully functioning population and society. It seems that actually once a population moves over more than about 1,000 people, problems inevitably occur. In order to solve those problems, solutions are created which inevitably cause yet further problems.

And all political and social theory is a load of crap when it comes down to that, the social housing boom of the seventies in hi rise flats actually invented a non existent problem to solve and then wiped out the communities that they purported to create.

The basic premise of a state should be to function. If it does not function then chaos occurs (Despite anarchist idealism, a failed state is more likely to become another Somalia or settle under a Dictator, than return to an easier, agrarian co operative community - look at New Orleans, what about the ill etc?) Everything else, including the needs of its citizens is secondary to that. Because if the state fails then all of its citizens are in danger, not just some. However it's a balancing act, fail the citizens and you have a revolution (that usually just ends up killing a lot of people).

Once you have a safe, functioning state, then you are able to look after the needs of the citizens.

The point of these cuts, is that we were on the verge of no longer being a safe functioning state, whatever Rob says about the deficit being higher in wartime. Firstly, at that time we had an agreed loan and period of repayment with our creditor - the US - of over 40 years. This time around we had no agreed repayment with our various creditors and Labour kept borrowing at an exponential rate. Our creditors would have therefore closed the book on us borrowing more as a country, or at least made it ten times more expensive because there was a danger we would default on our debts.

This is all the Tories have done. Set up a timetable to reduce our borrowing. This means that funds in the public sector reduce, but as I say above, it is more important to reduce the borrowing or suffer the failure of the state as Iceland, Ireland and Greece have suffered.

Thus they are putting the country first ahead of its citizens. It is callous, it is heartless, it is absolutely necessary to reduce the public sector by 25% unless you want to see the country default on its debts and have 50% of the public sector be wiped out overnight. And quite frankly that means I am glad that there are people in the top jobs who look at the big picture and who do cut the spending, for the benefit of the country, rather than listen to all the bleeding hearts that argue that women such as this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250993/Single-mum-finds-mansion-net-gets-YOU-pay-7-000-month-rent.html
(Apologies for the Mail report, but the Guardian doesn't do this type of reporting) should not live within the means of the people paying their rent. If I tried to get a £600,000 mortgage, I'd be turfed out in the first month for defaulting and rightly so, as everyone on here would say. It is only fair that people whose rent is paid by others live to the means of others.

Such luxuries are available once, and only once, the country is on a solid economical footing.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pex wrote:
Professor wrote:
The world is unjust, nothing you nor I nor anyone else can do is ever gonna change that.


Well, it's lucky our ancestors didn't believe that when they were fighting for the Great Reform Bill and electing the post-war Labour government, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Though perhaps you're very rich or aristocratic, in which case you'd be having this conversation with yourself.


And? We live in a relatively good country. Try asking the people of Burma if they want to try and elect a new Government?

What I mean when I say the world is unjust is that you cannot change anything through outside events. The Tolpuddle Martyrs are Martyrs for a reason. Magna Carta wasn't signed for the rights of the people, but for the rights of the Barons. Imposing Democracy on Iraq and Somalia have been great successes, haven't they! The current Mexican Drug War is having spectacular results in terms of bodycount. The US Constitution was primarily a way to stop paying British Tax and completely ignored the rights of Blacks and Indians. The Great Reform Bill, and 99% of all other good things come from within the system.

And the system is inherently unjust and prejudiced. And well done to anyone who beats it.

The point is, you're on here moaning about stuff you have no power over. If you really believed in it so much, you'd get yourself elected and do something about it. Or you can try and exert an outside influence, but that won't go anywhere. Because working the system is the only way to do it, and in order to work the system you have to show that what you intend to do will benefit those who pull the strings. That's why it's nigh on bloody impossible.

The world is one big power game, and you're naive if you don't believe Human Rights are used as a form of power. Labour use their ideology as a weapon, not because they genuinely care (Witness Harridan Harperson, the "figurehead" on equality movement, attacking someone for having Ginger Hair) In order to change it, you have to manipulate the power successfully. The world is full of dead people (or political failures) who couldn't do it.

But by all means, go ahead and try rather than arguing with a cynic like me.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Moderator General



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 1149
Location: City of the Damned

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
But by all means, go ahead and try rather than arguing with a cynic like me.


But you're not a cynic, are you Professor? You come on her espousing the Cameron/Osborne doctrine of devil-take-the-hindmost like some wild-eyed zealot jacking off at the Nuremberg rally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moderator General wrote:
Professor wrote:
Moderator General wrote:
Professor wrote:
If we were to fund the drugs for everyone, then some other vital service would have to go to provide it.


Perhaps this money for cancer drugs could come from obscenely rich tax avoiders. What's your objection to that?


I have no objection.


So you admit you were talking shit when you said "some other vital service would have to go to provide it"?


Nope. Firstly, if you check the No10 website, and the new transparency page, you will note that, I think, the Customs and Excise Ministry is tabling a bill to close down tax avoidance loopholes and to increase powers to go after Tax evaders. Coming in next year IIRC. So your rage is completely misplaced,, it just hasn't been reported in the Guardian.

Secondly, even if all benefit cheats were cracked down on, and all tax cheats were caught, as the only actions a Government took, we would still be running a deficit.

moderator general wrote:

Professor wrote:
Moderator General wrote:
Professor wrote:
If you believe in getting everyone off the streets, as B3 does, as I'm sure you do. As I do, how do you go about it if you can't afford to build or buy and all your housing cash is going on a relatively small amount of people being charged exorbitant sums in Central London?


There's a place in Central London called Buckingham Palace which strikes me as far too large for the pair of work-shy, tax-avoiding immigrants who live there.


On the other hand, it is pretty much solely responsible for millions of foreign tourists in London every year spending money on lots of small businesses.


Well, if it's bringing money in, it's clearly above morality. I'm sure crack-dealing doesn't hurt the sales of BMWs, and the war in Iraq must have done wonders for Haliburton's bottom line. Both good things in your opinion?


No. I am saying that the economic bottom line comes above some morality. Not all, and by no means anything above that bottom line. But the maintenance of that bottom line is moral in and of itself because if a country goes bust then it cannot afford the little things, like the NHS. It is moral for a country to maintain its economy properly, because to fail to do so plunges its citizens into anarchy. If short term targeted pain is required for economic balance, then this is preferable to long term mass pain.

Moderator General wrote:

Professor wrote:
Won't happen, so let's address the issues, rather than moaning about the injustice of the world. The world is unjust, nothing you nor I nor anyone else can do is ever gonna change that.


You're on here all the time moaning about the injustices of the feckless poor parasitising the tax-payer, and how Cameron and Osborne's plans for work camps are a massive and necessary step forward in dealing with the injustices of the world. How come when someone suggests similar measures for feckless rich parasites, they're deluded idealists?

[/quote]

As I said in my post above. The world works on power. The rich hold it. It's no good moaning about it, that's the truth.

So how do you intend to prise their hands off that power? Either become a Socialist/Communist. But that doesn't work because the power simply shifts to others, usually people like Stalin. Or you blow them up, like Al Qaeda did at the Twin Towers. But that doesn't work for obvious reasons because they come after you with bigger weapons. Or you become rich yourself in order to gain the power to change things, but that doesn't work, because once you have power, other people resent you, not only that you have to protect your power, in order to do the good things you want to do, obviously. Or you get yourself elected. But that only works in democratic countries and you are one very little fish in a very large pond. Witness the failure of Martin Bell to change the world.

Obviously there's more to the dynamics than that, but you get the gist.

Edit. One other way: Become a martyr. Worked with the Suffragettes, but not with Rachel Corrie in Israel. Nor the numerous Tibetan Monks etc etc. Also, it's pretty much a last resort.
_________________


Last edited by Professor on Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:12 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moderator General wrote:
Professor wrote:
But by all means, go ahead and try rather than arguing with a cynic like me.


But you're not a cynic, are you Professor? You come on her espousing the Cameron/Osborne doctrine of devil-take-the-hindmost like some wild-eyed zealot jacking off at the Nuremberg rally.


I was asked my views in a pretty obvious bait. Like B3 doesn't already know my views.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm simply putting across an alternate viewpoint that isn't individualist. That when you are in charge of a state, actually the state does come first if it's on the verge of economic collapse. And you can be all woolly and liberal minded about people's rights and so on, but economic collapse and the following anarchy would not take a blind jot of notice about people's rights.

I'm not even asking you to agree with me. I'm glad you do disagree with me in fact. Because I do actually believe in Socialism. I'm just very aware that it is not always the solution and presents as many problems as it solves.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
B3



Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:

Isn't that what Britain is renowned for? The Blitz spirit? Putting up and making do?


Quite right.

If the coalition of cunts have their way there will be homeless families sleeping rough in tube stations.




_________________
Die zarte, aber helle Differenz


Last edited by B3 on Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
B3



Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:


Like I said, in North Korea, where everyone lives on Welfare, you get massive families allocated two rooms. The state cannot afford to house everyone who wants to live in London.



Laughing

Let them eat kimchi.






Oh, by the way, it's not The Guardian's figure of 600,000; it's Shelter's and the Federation of Housing Associations'.
_________________
Die zarte, aber helle Differenz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Snodgrass



Joined: 18 Apr 2010
Posts: 191

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I bet you a place on the train to Ian Duncan-Smith's forced labour camps that Professor is a Third Positionist. Very Happy I mean, he justifies inequality and all that. Either that or he's a Nihilist. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
B3



Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snodgrass wrote:
I bet you a place on the train to Ian Duncan-Smith's forced labour camps that Professor is a Third Positionist. Very Happy I mean, he justifies inequality and all that. Either that or he's a Nihilist. Laughing


Actually, that's a good point. The CoCs are negative nihilists in Nietzsche's sense - they have devalued all hitherto values.

I couldn't tell you if Prof's a Third Positionist. What's their line on "half castes"?
_________________
Die zarte, aber helle Differenz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Snodgrass



Joined: 18 Apr 2010
Posts: 191

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

B3 wrote:
Snodgrass wrote:
I bet you a place on the train to Ian Duncan-Smith's forced labour camps that Professor is a Third Positionist. Very Happy I mean, he justifies inequality and all that. Either that or he's a Nihilist. Laughing


Actually, that's a good point. The CoCs are negative nihilists in Nietzsche's sense - they have devalued all hitherto values.

I couldn't tell you if Prof's a Third Positionist. What's their line on "half castes"?


Shoot them, place them on a forced-labour camp, deport them, use them as front-line cannon fodder.

Well, Fascism and Nazism are both Third Position spawn. And there is a fine line between ultra nationalism and racism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Leisure Hive Forum Index -> Current Affairs, History & Politics All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
 :: 
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign