Also if you think that Thatcher made everything better for everyone, just to different degrees (which is what she's trying to claim) then you're fucking blind
What kind of moron cares about "the gap between rich and poor". The gap doesnt matter at all. All that matters is how poor the poor are. Would you rather live in a country where the poor make $2,000/year and the rich make $20,000? Or a country where the poor make $20,000/year and the rich make $20,000,000?
The first country has an incredibly small gap between rich and poor, the second has a HUMONGOUS gap. Which country would you rather live in?
@FartyFace First of all that's economically falacious and secondly the problem is as much social as it is economic.
If the rich were only making 20,000 then money would be worth a huge amount more, and therefore both scenarios would be pretty much the same. Basically hyperinflation in reverse, if you print loads of money it becomes worth less, if you print very little is worth a lot more. The second country sounds disgusting. The class divide would mean horrific segregation.
@emperiousART Now you are just being silly. Ok forget the dollar bill comparison. Lets say the rich people in country A make 1 ounce of gold/year and the poor make 1/4th ounce of gold/year.
The rich in country B make 1,000 ounces of gold a year and the poor earn 5 ounces of gold per year.
Which country would you rather live in? Country A with the very small income gap or country B with the HUGE income gap. Give an honest answer.
@FartyFace It's the same situation whether it's gold or paper money or whatever - prices will rise depending on income. If you're importing from other countries, either the stuff also costs a lot of gold or your domestic productivity is wildly expensive (people being paid lots of gold to produce stuff that's way cheaper to import)
Anyway the point is high inequality means the results of society's productivity are being massively appropriated by a minority, which pushes the cost of living up
After recent riots, lets consider evidence ahead of rhetoric. A book called the Spirit Level demonstrates strong links between income inequality and social ills such as violence, depression, crime, and teenage pregnancies. Cameron has quoted this book. The right-leaning Economist considered its evidence "hard to dismiss." Not once did Simon Hughes say he wanted the poor poorer. Not once did the labour guy advocate Eastern-European communism. Her rousing speeches were full of misrepresentation.
Yes and she is absolutely right, Socialism is all about envy and jealousy and want everyone to be equal. Problem is, "Some people are more equal than others" There ive said it. Its as simple as that, IT DOESNT WORK! Period, and if money grew on trees Socialism would work but it never will and that is why our country has been in debt for so long because so many of the public are scared to lose their handouts so they vote labour.
This old witch praised Pinochet for "establishing democracy" in Chile. I´m sure the thousands of people he murdered, forcefully disappeared and tortured, would disagree with her.
I can only assume your pretending to be unable to follow a line of argument. Go back to your post where you refute all means of comparative measurement by bewilderingly claiming that relativism proves nothing. You've now declined 3 requests to copy and paste evidence of claims I've supposedly made, and countless calls for you to cite evidence for your initial claim. It is therefore you are the fool, for I can think of no other word for a person that disputes empirical fact can exist.
What measure of evidence are you asking? You accept extrapolated relativism as absolute 'fact' and you expect to be taken seriously enough to ask me for proof?.
You could not even cope with the current figures Ive stated which show people are worse off now than under Thatcher. You really need to do your homework. You did not even know the Labour party carried on many Thatcher ideas. I guess we all imagined Brown inviting her for tea and dinner all those times as well. Open your eyes!
'You accept extrapolated relativism as absolute 'fact''
Yes, as that was what the argument was about. Are you on medication for that poor memory of yours?
'You could not even cope with the current figures Ive stated which show people are worse off now than under Thatcher.'
You only gave current figures, not previous stats for these to be compared with - as I did. So, in essence, you have not proved we are any worse or better under Labour. Learn how to argue rationally, or shut up.
Also, please answer how re'lativism is not 'fact': would you, for instance, claim that China is not bigger than the UK, as this is based on a relative factor. Of course you wouldn't. Try and avoid using tems you don't fully understand in areas of which you have no understanding.
Firstly, Like Hughes you suggest that the 'gap' means income reduction for the poorest as a whole. It doesnt at all and you have not proven that.
Secondly, your grasp of relatative extrapolation is flawed because you assume relativity is based on a mere comparison leading to a direct and absolute truth. Its not.The size and number of a country is an absolute fact. Defining poverty by material ownership means you have to define the spectrum of whats acceptable relative to what is not.
'The size and number of a country is an absolute fact. '
It's getting increasingly frustrating arguing with your ignorance. Go back, read through my post, realise your an imbecile incapable of even understanding the point being made. Should you fail at this (which I fully expect) revert to your use of Relativism/absolutism
Did you ignore where I said the IFS said Labours Inequality was the worst income inequality since its founding in 1961?
Would you like to compare it with before the war or something? I thought you was attacking Thatcher here?
Seems also the the income of the poorest 30% fell by 0.5% during the last period of Blair when they always increased by at least 1.2% under Thatcher, even during the 1980s recession when more people were unemployed and the factory/industry closed in high numbers.
As you have to define and agree a spectrum to measure (which can be manipulated, slided and used for poliltical gain) then its not necessarily fact because not all people will agree the way the construct was formulated to start with, let alone agree the outcome of the measure.
That people like you are so delusional as to actually believe tripe like that kind of makes the point that conservatives are too detached from reality to govern. You honestly think an entire political party/movement is basically motivated by irrational spite on a fundamental level?
Anyway, from my first post I said your comment was rubbish because it concerned relative poverty. I've said about three times that the figures either mean little or they are, or should, be irrelevant to govt. policy formation. They could be used against govt. like current figures can but I do not respect the worth of them.
You have failed to show why they are relevant or how you solve the problem (which cannot) without robbing from A to handout to B?
So let me get this straight, facts and figures are 'irrelevant', and the effects of policies are also 'irrelevant' to government policy. What on earth do you think the role of the government is then?
Do you have a profanity disorder or are you noramlly so socially inept?
Do you have any idea of Libertarian, Conservative, Socialist or Liberal ideology?
Conservatives support small state supervisory govt. that promotes total freedom.
Reports on relative poverty are social academic constructs measured by varying definition of that standard? It has nothing to do with absolute poverty.
There is no arguement because your assumption relies on just one poverty measure. There are at least four measures and not everyone agrees they are good. The gap has got bigger in the last 10-15 years than under Thatcher. People in the lowest incomes has increased without the range of income changing drastically. Look up the DWP figures, the Family Resource Survey (FRS), The UK Poverty Site and Leading Poverty research sites including the Rowntree Foundation.
People were better off under Thatcher than they are now thats for sure. Admit it. Of course you won't because you are as politically sane as Arthur Scargill.
If anyone has shown signs of irrationality, it's you. It's been the very basis of your 'argument', claiming facts and figures are useless and we should all be basing policies on mindless opinion. Hardly 'sane', is it?
Political theory is opinion to you because you have no sense what that means.
Are you saying you do not even know what ideological differences exist between the parties? Do you have any clue how this fuels party policy? Obviously not!
'Political theory is opinion to you because you have no sense what that means.'
But you have not used politcal theory. You have used claims unevidenced in either theory or practice, showing a complete lack of understanding of political theory, the ability to follow a reasoned argument .
Again, you still haven't evidenced your claims with facts or figures, instead spouting the type of reductive arguments you'd hear from a remedial class in sixth form.
'Maybe you can ask New Labour why they knicked some Thatcher policies to win? in 1997? :-) '
Such as?
Google it LOL
According to Peter Mandelson they (labour) are all Thatcherites now--didnt you know that?
I suppose you noticed no renationalisation of privatised services?
You never thought about PFI initatives?, foundation hospitals?, the school academy system?, the private sector used in the NHS?, contracting out of public services to private companies?
What opinion did I give that wasnt based on Conservative ideas, theory or practice? Yes you dislike it but you even fail to acknowledge it exists. You are unable to tackle or acknowledge the current political issues which have placed us in a much worse situation than you could ever attribute to Thatcher. But you insist that under her things were worse for the poor.
Where have I said this? Go on, where exactly have I even come remotely close to saying this. I want you to copy and paste the exact post where I've said this, I dare you.
You are picking one stat to try and win an arguement. Very naive.
The reality is despite all the funding, promises and policy in the last 12 years there has been little practical change to show for it.
Thatcher won three elections and the govt. was the longest serving overall. She reduced taxation, increased the level of savers, reduced inflation and increased share holding. She allowed the poor to buy their council homes. Thats the facts. There was more opportunity than ever before.
'You are picking one stat to try and win an arguement.'
Because that's what the argument was about - that you can't understand this and attempt to change the issue makes you, at best, naive, and, at worst, stupid.
So I imagined the Poll Tax, one of the worst recessions in industrial Europe, the near collapse of the economy on Black Monday, the sale of nationalized industries, the highest rate of repossessed homes, and, her living legacy, the de-regularization of the banking industry which led to the current robbery of millions of tax payers money by greedy bankers?
Now who is resorting to mere opinion and ranting? haha
The Poll Tax was a good idea. Go and ask Labour councils why they hiked local rates up to increase anger at the government to win votes?
Privatisation was a good thing and needs to continue. Do you know anything about national energy, strikes and services before 1980? Seems not!
Like it or not she was elected and did what she felt was right. Maybe you can ask New Labour why they knicked some Thatcher policies to win in 1997? :-)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that there was 200,000 more Pensioners in relative Poverty, 400,000 more Workers in relative Poverty, and 200, 000 more Children in relative Poverty since 2003 alone.
Inequality by your measure is now at its higest than when the IFS started in 1961.
So your arguement is as useful for the current climate as a sinking ship. Like Labour basically. Final :-)
'I've said about three times that the figures either mean little or they are, or should, be irrelevant to govt. policy formation.'
What you are arguing is the most moronic logic I have seen: facts do not exist and should not be taken into account. However, mindless opinion unevidenced in reality, such as your own, is should count.
In that case, I will argue that the moon is in fact made out of cheese and any evidence to the contrary is 'irrelevant.'
The MP who makes the accusation is indeed correct. Statistics by the independent Joseph Rowntree commission confirmed the income of the richest 10% rose significantly, whilst for the poorest 10% their income fell to poverty levels. The Thactcher government used averages (which does not account for distribution of wealth) to claim 'the country was better off as a whole.' A dark and shameful period in 20th Century British politics, and one we should learn a lesson from.
Dear me, is this the legacy of Thatcher's education policies, an inability to understand facts over opinion, and simple argumentation. Your post certainly suggests so.
You was educated under Thatcher and sadly under Labour.
It seems they have created a generation of people who accept anything they are told on face value to be true.
Maybe we should what happened to Labours child poverty pledge? Or why the poverty gap has increased under Labour despite heavy tax funding by the rich?
Labour robs from families to give to anyone it thinks will keep voting for them in the socialist system.
'You was educated under Thatcher and sadly under Labour. '
I think you mean WERE. seems the brighter ones grew up with an understanding of grammar and facts.
You still haven't provided any evidence for your claims, presumabl because you have none, as, like I said previously, you have nothing but opinon to go on - opinion not reflected in reality.
'Was' works fine there. Are you actually that sad to reduce a post in that way??LOL
You are talking about relative poverty alone.
I never said figures could not be used against the govt. at that time. I said it was not the governments sole problem to tackle it by hitting the issue with money.
This is a totally different political approach.
As I asked you already: Why should the gap issue have any effect on policy?
No it doesn't, you idiot. 'were' is used when the subject is first-person singular.
'I never said figures could not be used against a govt. '
Yes, you did, that was the basis of your last 5/6 posts!
You still haven't addressed the original point - the poor got poorer under Thatcher and the rich got richer - and therefore seem incapable of following a basic argument. If you chose to reply, I suggest you do so with reference to this, using evidence, as i hav
It worked fine because this is just Youtube. Plus it is very funny to see you being so anally retentive when you have made some errors yourself LOL.
In any case you was wrong when correcting me because 'were' is used for second person singular and plural past. Not first person singular like you said.
haha. That is poor, even by your standards. You now seem to be arguiing my point for me: since when has 'social breakdown' been exclusive of poverty. Ever notice how 'social breakdown' only occurs in poor areas? Odd, isn't it? And as for welfare dependancy, again, this points to poverty. You seem confused. Rather than 'ignore these issues' relative poverty highlights them, and their causes.
'Your stats on relative poverty alone are meaningless.'
No actually social breakdown happens in all economic brackets. Divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism, poor health, social isolation, crime, abortion, prostitution, family splits and so on occur in all places and all classes.
The problem is more evident in deprived places because they get all the press and govt. focus.
This is because they end up on welfare and become economically inactive. This creates more problems for everyone and places huge demands on the average worker.
'No actually social breakdown happens in all economic brackets. Divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism, poor health...occur in all places and all classes.'
So what are you now saying, that this did or did not increase under Thatcherism? You've completely lost sight of your argument, haven't you?
'The problem is more evident in deprived places because they get all the press and govt. focus.'
Haha, yes, because as we all know it doesn't REALLY exist at all, does it?.
Its been increasing since the 1960s. You choose to focus on one stat and twenty years ago to make some sort of empty political arguement that many people do not see as relevant to the role of government, like me. Theres no point talking about relative poverty and pumping money into a black hole. Socialists/liberals are unable to be honest and address the real issues.
'You choose to focus on one stat and twenty years ago to make some sort of empty political arguement'
Because that was what YOUR original post was about; what effect Thatcherism had on Britain! Do you suffer from Alzheimers, or are you just incapable of understanding an argument?
Many of these issues can only be solved by individuals/families taking responsibility for themselves, eachother, where they live and how they live. They can get help but many want other people to solve all the problems for them. Socialism holds people back from being all they can be by making people victims, amotivated, living off the state and unable to lead their own lives fully as a result. Socialistic ideals have created the worst kind of sub culture possible in Britain.
You ignored the increased investment in % of GDP into public services during this period, the benefits of low inflation, the challenges facing industry, recession, the growth in home ownership, the growth in share ownership, the growth in savings, the growth in small business.
You also ignore the growth in globalisation which would naturally impact on your relative poverty figures in the short term.
You have not shown any facts. They are as unbiased as the Centre for Social Justice which says the opposite to most left leaning groups using figures and evidence.
Like any stats, evidence and figures can be bended anyway a person or group likes.
You seem to criticise Thatcher for that directly but cannot accept social liberals/socialists and think tanks do the same thing
You have no arguement why Thatcher was ever wrong about anything or how the evidence you seem to be harking on should make any shred of difference to govt. policy?
You are trying to gain credibility for a position without even knowing the solution.
An empty and useless observation about socially constructed ideas of poverty, much like Simon Hughes in this clip.
God bless her!!! THAT is a real prime minister! No one in Britain knows how to stick it in those socialist left wing cunts like she did...If Britain doesn't get another Thatcher soon,in ten years she'll be just another socialist province of "Eurabia"....
The government should provide a safety net and thats it. The present system we have is far far beyond that where people look to the govt. to solve all there problems for everything they should do themselves.
What an awful woman she was. Unable to answer the questions she was asked. Just repeating "you want the poor poorer" which of course was complete crap. The issue was inequality, which has got much worse since the seventies.
If you're talking about the gap between rich and poor, you're always talking about the rich. Suppose, in an idealised situation, two prospects. In one, the poor make a pound a year, and the rich make a thousand pounds a year. In the other, the poor make twenty thousand pounds per year, and the rich make a trillion. Surely the latter is prefferable even if inequality increases by an enormous factor. This is basically what has happened over history
Thatchers policy was never to ignore or harm the disabled or the sick. But she felt families and the rich would gladly help such persons but not through socialist policy thats open to widespread abuse and waste.
I think its wrong for someone to say the conservative view was that a person keeps everything and helps noone even if they are poor via no fault, disabled , sick or dying.
Yes,...I'm not British...I'm American, but a lot of people give, and donate and volunteer ON THEIR OWN. The govt is not the best way to help the poor. Other organizations....the Salvation Army did awesome work here after 9/11...the sacrifice of these people...the practical help they provided to the police and firefighters, the food, the counseling, etc, etc....
utherpendragon, you are a selfish bastard if you don't want to help people who can't find work or are too ill to work. The bitch only got 44% of the vote and was a friend of General Pinochet.
What a great woman. I work hard for my money. Why should I pay to help people who don't or cannot? That is the essential conservative policy, and that is why I support.
wow, you two seem to be having an intense arguement.
i just wanted to say that Margaret Thatcher seems to embrace the trend towards an expanding income gap. an expanding gap is a sign of a sickening society, but i feel it is a consequence of declining economic productivity also.
i would like to know the cause of the expansion of the gap.
You europeans have been brainwashed to beleive everyone needs to be equal in result not in opportunities some people work harder some people are smarter some people create and invent instead of
watching their clocks till quiting time or demanding a dole check, why is it wrong to reward hard work why must succes be punished? inequality is a sign of a healthy
vital economy.. would you rather as thatcher states everyone be equally poor?
im not european but if you look at american history, when was the economy at the peak of its health? when the income gap was minimal and domestic production was vibrant. now, we see domestic production probably near all time lows, and the income gap at an all time high.
if the income gap is narrow, then you have the workers in an economy engaged productively in a competitive manner. but when it is high, you see that domestic competition is reduced, as it is in this crony capitalist reality.
If Bill Gates walks into a bar full of millionaires, one can say he owns 80% of the wealth in that room. It dosen't mean everyone else is poor. As long as everyone's real income is rising, it dosen't matter about the gap. The only people who care are fuckfaced Marxists who believe murder is equivalent to orgasm.
I am on working Tax credit and because of the corruption in the family courts my family has been trashed, I have no pension but hell will freeze over before I vote Labour again. I suggest you read animal farm for your home work and give me an essay on the parallels to modern day Britain
Animal farm was an anti Stalinist fable, but it was pro socialist. Re-read yours and you will see Orwell painted the basic tenets of "animalism" as right and good. The snowball character was based on Leon Trotsky for god sake. How do you teach it in your schools. Then again your a working class person against the working class party. We call those class traitors in the US.
I referenced animal farm in reference to the MP'S expenses row, and class traitor I maybe but I am answerable to god not to some fake reality of the class structure, we are all equal.
oh rubbish your spusa?? my god that takes me back so was i oh 30 years ago..
class traitors? who in gods name uses language like that in the USA no one is soiclaist here exept a few crackpots!(like you)my grandfather worked for the railroad
al his life was a union member praised FDR for his helping the little guy
but in 1979 hed seen enough rubbish
and voted for reagan by 1988 i was 30
and had seen enough rubbish to and voted for bush1
It;s not my fault you can not grasp a world without exploitation. Your little brain just can't handle Marxism because at heart you are a bush conservative Neo-con. You wish we could go back to Reagan and destroy not only the poor but the middle class then all. Thatcher put words in the mans mouth. If she were still in power we would be the first party to throw eggs at her passing car.
Why do the Neo-con brigade always assume, that anyone who has the guts to express an opinion against their policies, is a Liberal or socialist? By primitive instinct, certain individuals, some of them Liberals and socialists, have their conscience pricked by material wealth and financial gain.
I can grasp a world without exploitation, and haven't been exploited in the first 49 years, except when it came to divorce and in reality it was a price worth paying for total freedom.
well good for you.. she run off on you then? damned shame when women go bad.you seem to have a very high divorce rate in Britian i've often found that curious
my little brain was polluted with those delusions of utopia for decades,
a world wihtout exploitation? youll never see it unless jesus comes down from heaven in a flying saucer, if he exists
its an idiotic pipe dream that can excuses in the young due to their idealism
and iinexperience if you still beleive in this utter rubbish when you get to be my age you belong in a mantal hospital socialism has created so much death and carnage so much human misery
You are just lying, and it's not my fault you hate yourself. This is why I teach history, and my kids stay at home and get taught by their mother. No one has any brains anymore, like boiling a frog with these capitalists.
lying? your deusional how old are you you fool, i used to be a socialist just by watching the world and change i could see that socialism was a mistake it did not work state industry and high tax
Now your just repeating thatchers lies. The left now and always have wanted to bring the poor up and the wealthiest down. It's not equal poverty, its an equalized middle class. Where none are to Rich and none are to poor. To believe in the hierarchy of monarchs and capitalist republics is just folly. Capitalists are self centered, and unable to make a lasting system. The socialist system has never been allowed to grow, always strangled by capitalist nations.
i used to think that, she was a brave morla women who stood up tolazy thugs like you that would rather strike than do an honest days work i know i'm a lazy bugger i dont like world the difference is i admit it now and admire and respect those who get up do a days work and create wealth hats off to you honest men and women of honest labour and business! thank you for creating wealth! thank you!
They create nothing but wage slaves, and you have the Gaul to thank them for it? Are you a man or a dog scrimping for the scraps? You have a slave mentality, a slave to capital.
Now I see you for who you are. A sadist and a masochist. You desire to see all those you dream unworthy to death. You are nothing but a punk Neo-Nazi.
You are a Nazi. It's plain the way you talk you are a fascist, if you are a Jew that just means you are a Zionist. Same thing in the end. They both heap blame on the poor for being poor and would rather all the smelly people disappear. Hope your catching the sarcasm, because i know your an idiot.
Name calling is both a logical fallacy and cognitive bias, and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear based on fearmongering tactics will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to denounce
listen you little shit my ancestor were smellly people the WASPS wanted to dissappear, no irish no tialains no jew need apply we didnt have shit but we worked and worked and worked and we made something it is possible and you dont want to admit that because then you have to admit your own failure
They were forced into a capitalist system that asked to much of them, children in mines, no medical care. My Great Grandfather died on the docks for fear of being fired, and my grandfather was a union organizer for the IWW. The work to pull the lower class up, and pull down the capitalist rich down is a noble cause.
The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy
The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem.
Example: "If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traffic whatsoever."
well then why do resent people that are successes you live in the academic world
people in the public world go there because they cant make it in business
good stay there better there than on welfare but dont knock the people who payyour salary and actualy create wealth you teach? you shouldnt you sound like me exactly like me when i was 19
No punk, I'm nothing like you becuase i believe in the people, and after 17 years in the party have learned more and taught more then anyone you and your tiny world knows. I'm 30 with a wonderful wife and a child who both believe as i do. That socialism not only works, it is essential to our future.
no i take that back most people are basically good decent and just to busy to sift through lifes complexity
you prey on them with dogman and demogogery
people most people dont need your nanny state they just want the governement out of their lives so they can take care of themesleves and their families
It's people like you that keep my fire going, and the ones who will suffer most. "The end can justify the means, as long as there is something to justify the end." Leon Trotsky. I shed no tears for the blood of the bourgeoisie, for the blood of the proletariat is oceans deep.
Read Das Capital and get back to me on wage labor, i don't know if i have time to banter with a pathetic capitalist. All your talking points are from the McCarthy hand book. You sound like that old radio show "i married a communist." How about this, you take your punk ass to the 50's and leave the running of the world to the adults who actually care about people.
i'm an agnostic my parents were diest and decided that a bit of religon might help us so they sent us to the nearest church it was some protestant sect
oh methodists, nice people methodists
i support isreal because all people have a right to a homeland
palestinians? who?
the arab world is huge they can live in jordan, israel is tiny the size of new jersey
the jews fought bravely they earned their homeland
lmfao! oh listen to the man of the people! look i've been poor i've been sick i thank god or whoever i am reasonably healthy and have a roof overmy head but i know you i have been exactly where you are its not that you want jusice for the poor i tried to fool myself thats why i was so angry i was angry because people around me many from much poorer backrounds were succeeding while i failed you fe like a failure i know you and you hare people who suceed stop it wealth creates wealth
Yes, there are many burger flippers with a masters degree. What exactly is wrong with Burger flippers...ow wait, that's right, their losers, so not worth life. Guess we should go and kill some losers....right?
Also if you think that Thatcher made everything better for everyone, just to different degrees (which is what she's trying to claim) then you're fucking blind
cactustactics 1 week ago
hear hear!
g0ssage 4 months ago
Focusing on the income gap is all about envy, not prosperity.
moralimpact 4 months ago
What she is saying is correct
TalonMercenary 4 months ago
What kind of moron cares about "the gap between rich and poor". The gap doesnt matter at all. All that matters is how poor the poor are. Would you rather live in a country where the poor make $2,000/year and the rich make $20,000? Or a country where the poor make $20,000/year and the rich make $20,000,000?
The first country has an incredibly small gap between rich and poor, the second has a HUMONGOUS gap. Which country would you rather live in?
FartyFace 6 months ago 11
@FartyFace First of all that's economically falacious and secondly the problem is as much social as it is economic.
If the rich were only making 20,000 then money would be worth a huge amount more, and therefore both scenarios would be pretty much the same. Basically hyperinflation in reverse, if you print loads of money it becomes worth less, if you print very little is worth a lot more. The second country sounds disgusting. The class divide would mean horrific segregation.
emperiousART 1 month ago
@emperiousART Now you are just being silly. Ok forget the dollar bill comparison. Lets say the rich people in country A make 1 ounce of gold/year and the poor make 1/4th ounce of gold/year.
The rich in country B make 1,000 ounces of gold a year and the poor earn 5 ounces of gold per year.
Which country would you rather live in? Country A with the very small income gap or country B with the HUGE income gap. Give an honest answer.
FartyFace 1 month ago
@FartyFace It's the same situation whether it's gold or paper money or whatever - prices will rise depending on income. If you're importing from other countries, either the stuff also costs a lot of gold or your domestic productivity is wildly expensive (people being paid lots of gold to produce stuff that's way cheaper to import)
Anyway the point is high inequality means the results of society's productivity are being massively appropriated by a minority, which pushes the cost of living up
cactustactics 1 week ago
Thatcher rules, socialists drool.
WimpBastard 6 months ago
After recent riots, lets consider evidence ahead of rhetoric. A book called the Spirit Level demonstrates strong links between income inequality and social ills such as violence, depression, crime, and teenage pregnancies. Cameron has quoted this book. The right-leaning Economist considered its evidence "hard to dismiss." Not once did Simon Hughes say he wanted the poor poorer. Not once did the labour guy advocate Eastern-European communism. Her rousing speeches were full of misrepresentation.
donnachab 7 months ago
Yes and she is absolutely right, Socialism is all about envy and jealousy and want everyone to be equal. Problem is, "Some people are more equal than others" There ive said it. Its as simple as that, IT DOESNT WORK! Period, and if money grew on trees Socialism would work but it never will and that is why our country has been in debt for so long because so many of the public are scared to lose their handouts so they vote labour.
W0lfster 10 months ago
"Oooh loook at me with my friend called Ceedric, sipping tea!"
Posh idiots.
TheVerve480 11 months ago
We need a terminator back in those times and anihilate to the memory of Friedman, Thatcher and Reagan, these facists have created the mess we're in.
GuiR3X 1 year ago
you have to be a fool to believe what she said, every call wrong, leading to this fucked up mess we have now
the1booth 1 year ago
Damn I don't know much about Thatcher but I didn't know she was drunk in public so often my god.
ipbalkenende 2 years ago
The bitches of usa...the supporters of murdering occupating and destroying countries
antroscliff 2 years ago
This old witch praised Pinochet for "establishing democracy" in Chile. I´m sure the thousands of people he murdered, forcefully disappeared and tortured, would disagree with her.
badseed136 2 years ago
Of course the size a country and its population is not a fact according to you. What a fool you are.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
I can only assume your pretending to be unable to follow a line of argument. Go back to your post where you refute all means of comparative measurement by bewilderingly claiming that relativism proves nothing. You've now declined 3 requests to copy and paste evidence of claims I've supposedly made, and countless calls for you to cite evidence for your initial claim. It is therefore you are the fool, for I can think of no other word for a person that disputes empirical fact can exist.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Basically what she says is true. You would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich.
You do not care for the poor. You are only focused on the rich and envy of success. A success that keeps this country moving.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
You've now avoided four of my requests for evidence to your argument, now.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
What measure of evidence are you asking? You accept extrapolated relativism as absolute 'fact' and you expect to be taken seriously enough to ask me for proof?.
You could not even cope with the current figures Ive stated which show people are worse off now than under Thatcher. You really need to do your homework. You did not even know the Labour party carried on many Thatcher ideas. I guess we all imagined Brown inviting her for tea and dinner all those times as well. Open your eyes!
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'You accept extrapolated relativism as absolute 'fact''
Yes, as that was what the argument was about. Are you on medication for that poor memory of yours?
'You could not even cope with the current figures Ive stated which show people are worse off now than under Thatcher.'
You only gave current figures, not previous stats for these to be compared with - as I did. So, in essence, you have not proved we are any worse or better under Labour. Learn how to argue rationally, or shut up.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Also, please answer how re'lativism is not 'fact': would you, for instance, claim that China is not bigger than the UK, as this is based on a relative factor. Of course you wouldn't. Try and avoid using tems you don't fully understand in areas of which you have no understanding.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Firstly, Like Hughes you suggest that the 'gap' means income reduction for the poorest as a whole. It doesnt at all and you have not proven that.
Secondly, your grasp of relatative extrapolation is flawed because you assume relativity is based on a mere comparison leading to a direct and absolute truth. Its not.The size and number of a country is an absolute fact. Defining poverty by material ownership means you have to define the spectrum of whats acceptable relative to what is not.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'The size and number of a country is an absolute fact. '
It's getting increasingly frustrating arguing with your ignorance. Go back, read through my post, realise your an imbecile incapable of even understanding the point being made. Should you fail at this (which I fully expect) revert to your use of Relativism/absolutism
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Did you ignore where I said the IFS said Labours Inequality was the worst income inequality since its founding in 1961?
Would you like to compare it with before the war or something? I thought you was attacking Thatcher here?
Seems also the the income of the poorest 30% fell by 0.5% during the last period of Blair when they always increased by at least 1.2% under Thatcher, even during the 1980s recession when more people were unemployed and the factory/industry closed in high numbers.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'Did you ignore where I said the IFS said Labours Inequality was the worst income inequality since its founding in 1961?'
Where have you said this?? Again, I dare you to cop and paste where you have said this, thicko.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
'Seems also the the income of the poorest 30% fell by 0.5% during the last period of Blair when they always increased by at least 1.2% under Thatcher'
You're not very bright, are you? Where's your source? The Rowntree figures completey contradict this.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
As you have to define and agree a spectrum to measure (which can be manipulated, slided and used for poliltical gain) then its not necessarily fact because not all people will agree the way the construct was formulated to start with, let alone agree the outcome of the measure.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
Ha, ha. You sound like a sixth former trying desperately to squeeze in as many contentless stock-phrases as possible.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
That people like you are so delusional as to actually believe tripe like that kind of makes the point that conservatives are too detached from reality to govern. You honestly think an entire political party/movement is basically motivated by irrational spite on a fundamental level?
ipbalkenende 2 years ago
I hope you saw that ' was' again :-)
Anyway, from my first post I said your comment was rubbish because it concerned relative poverty. I've said about three times that the figures either mean little or they are, or should, be irrelevant to govt. policy formation. They could be used against govt. like current figures can but I do not respect the worth of them.
You have failed to show why they are relevant or how you solve the problem (which cannot) without robbing from A to handout to B?
BungleZippie 2 years ago
So let me get this straight, facts and figures are 'irrelevant', and the effects of policies are also 'irrelevant' to government policy. What on earth do you think the role of the government is then?
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Do you have a profanity disorder or are you noramlly so socially inept?
Do you have any idea of Libertarian, Conservative, Socialist or Liberal ideology?
Conservatives support small state supervisory govt. that promotes total freedom.
Reports on relative poverty are social academic constructs measured by varying definition of that standard? It has nothing to do with absolute poverty.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'Conservatives support small state supervisory govt. that promotes total freedom.'
Haha, your best one yet. How can something be 'supervisory' whilst 'promoting total freedom'? More jumbled thinking.
'Reports on relative poverty are social academic constructs measured by varying definition of that standard?'
So you're arguing that these reports are not based on real conditions, measured empiracally, and these people do not, in fact, exist.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
In summary, as you seem incapable of understanding that you lost the argument a long time ago.
You claimed people were better of under Thatcher.
I argued they weren't, using independent research to evidence this.
You failed to provide any evidence to counter this (and still haven't), and instead starting using foundationless opinion as if it were fact.
Ergo. You haven't been able to evidence your claim, I have, and so you lost.
Final.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
There is no arguement because your assumption relies on just one poverty measure. There are at least four measures and not everyone agrees they are good. The gap has got bigger in the last 10-15 years than under Thatcher. People in the lowest incomes has increased without the range of income changing drastically. Look up the DWP figures, the Family Resource Survey (FRS), The UK Poverty Site and Leading Poverty research sites including the Rowntree Foundation.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
What has this to do with your original claim that 'people were better off in many ways' with Thatcher? Face it, you lost the argument.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
People were better off under Thatcher than they are now thats for sure. Admit it. Of course you won't because you are as politically sane as Arthur Scargill.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
If anyone has shown signs of irrationality, it's you. It's been the very basis of your 'argument', claiming facts and figures are useless and we should all be basing policies on mindless opinion. Hardly 'sane', is it?
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Political theory is opinion to you because you have no sense what that means.
Are you saying you do not even know what ideological differences exist between the parties? Do you have any clue how this fuels party policy? Obviously not!
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'Political theory is opinion to you because you have no sense what that means.'
But you have not used politcal theory. You have used claims unevidenced in either theory or practice, showing a complete lack of understanding of political theory, the ability to follow a reasoned argument .
Again, you still haven't evidenced your claims with facts or figures, instead spouting the type of reductive arguments you'd hear from a remedial class in sixth form.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
'Maybe you can ask New Labour why they knicked some Thatcher policies to win? in 1997? :-) '
Such as?
Google it LOL
According to Peter Mandelson they (labour) are all Thatcherites now--didnt you know that?
I suppose you noticed no renationalisation of privatised services?
You never thought about PFI initatives?, foundation hospitals?, the school academy system?, the private sector used in the NHS?, contracting out of public services to private companies?
BungleZippie 2 years ago
What opinion did I give that wasnt based on Conservative ideas, theory or practice? Yes you dislike it but you even fail to acknowledge it exists. You are unable to tackle or acknowledge the current political issues which have placed us in a much worse situation than you could ever attribute to Thatcher. But you insist that under her things were worse for the poor.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
Comment removed
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Where have I said this? Go on, where exactly have I even come remotely close to saying this. I want you to copy and paste the exact post where I've said this, I dare you.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Again, where's your proof?
pshardhorny 2 years ago
You are picking one stat to try and win an arguement. Very naive.
The reality is despite all the funding, promises and policy in the last 12 years there has been little practical change to show for it.
Thatcher won three elections and the govt. was the longest serving overall. She reduced taxation, increased the level of savers, reduced inflation and increased share holding. She allowed the poor to buy their council homes. Thats the facts. There was more opportunity than ever before.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'You are picking one stat to try and win an arguement.'
Because that's what the argument was about - that you can't understand this and attempt to change the issue makes you, at best, naive, and, at worst, stupid.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
So I imagined the Poll Tax, one of the worst recessions in industrial Europe, the near collapse of the economy on Black Monday, the sale of nationalized industries, the highest rate of repossessed homes, and, her living legacy, the de-regularization of the banking industry which led to the current robbery of millions of tax payers money by greedy bankers?
Of course I didn't.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Now who is resorting to mere opinion and ranting? haha
The Poll Tax was a good idea. Go and ask Labour councils why they hiked local rates up to increase anger at the government to win votes?
Privatisation was a good thing and needs to continue. Do you know anything about national energy, strikes and services before 1980? Seems not!
Like it or not she was elected and did what she felt was right. Maybe you can ask New Labour why they knicked some Thatcher policies to win in 1997? :-)
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'Maybe you can ask New Labour why they knicked some Thatcher policies to win in 1997? :-) '
Such as?
pshardhorny 2 years ago
The Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that there was 200,000 more Pensioners in relative Poverty, 400,000 more Workers in relative Poverty, and 200, 000 more Children in relative Poverty since 2003 alone.
Inequality by your measure is now at its higest than when the IFS started in 1961.
So your arguement is as useful for the current climate as a sinking ship. Like Labour basically. Final :-)
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'I've said about three times that the figures either mean little or they are, or should, be irrelevant to govt. policy formation.'
What you are arguing is the most moronic logic I have seen: facts do not exist and should not be taken into account. However, mindless opinion unevidenced in reality, such as your own, is should count.
In that case, I will argue that the moon is in fact made out of cheese and any evidence to the contrary is 'irrelevant.'
Imbecile.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Comment removed
pshardhorny 2 years ago
The MP who makes the accusation is indeed correct. Statistics by the independent Joseph Rowntree commission confirmed the income of the richest 10% rose significantly, whilst for the poorest 10% their income fell to poverty levels. The Thactcher government used averages (which does not account for distribution of wealth) to claim 'the country was better off as a whole.' A dark and shameful period in 20th Century British politics, and one we should learn a lesson from.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
pshardhorny--Rubbish. All people were better off after 1979 in many ways. Its not the govt. job to give pay outs to people to close the money gap.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
This is opinion.
Where's your facts and figures? According to whom, and with what evidence?
How do you account for the Rowntree Foundations findings?
If you choose to reply, I suggest you do so with data, not more dismissable, lazy opinion.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
You disputed what she and the government said without any facts or proof and you ask me for them?
All you did was drop some link to the Rowntree Foundation which means as much as me linking to the more Conservative Centre for Social Justice.
Its naive to think the Rowntree Foundation has no social /politcial agenda when it produces reports
Again, its not the govt. business to pay out money to people to close the poverty gap. This generally is the Labour/Liberal policy.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
Comment removed
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Dear me, is this the legacy of Thatcher's education policies, an inability to understand facts over opinion, and simple argumentation. Your post certainly suggests so.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
You was educated under Thatcher and sadly under Labour.
It seems they have created a generation of people who accept anything they are told on face value to be true.
Maybe we should what happened to Labours child poverty pledge? Or why the poverty gap has increased under Labour despite heavy tax funding by the rich?
Labour robs from families to give to anyone it thinks will keep voting for them in the socialist system.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'You was educated under Thatcher and sadly under Labour. '
I think you mean WERE. seems the brighter ones grew up with an understanding of grammar and facts.
You still haven't provided any evidence for your claims, presumabl because you have none, as, like I said previously, you have nothing but opinon to go on - opinion not reflected in reality.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
'Was' works fine there. Are you actually that sad to reduce a post in that way??LOL
You are talking about relative poverty alone.
I never said figures could not be used against the govt. at that time. I said it was not the governments sole problem to tackle it by hitting the issue with money.
This is a totally different political approach.
As I asked you already: Why should the gap issue have any effect on policy?
BungleZippie 2 years ago
''Was' works fine there.'
No it doesn't, you idiot. 'were' is used when the subject is first-person singular.
'I never said figures could not be used against a govt. '
Yes, you did, that was the basis of your last 5/6 posts!
You still haven't addressed the original point - the poor got poorer under Thatcher and the rich got richer - and therefore seem incapable of following a basic argument. If you chose to reply, I suggest you do so with reference to this, using evidence, as i hav
pshardhorny 2 years ago
It worked fine because this is just Youtube. Plus it is very funny to see you being so anally retentive when you have made some errors yourself LOL.
In any case you was wrong when correcting me because 'were' is used for second person singular and plural past. Not first person singular like you said.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
The relative poverty stats are a cheap trick to score points and ignores the issues of social breakdown and welfare dependancy behind the figures.
Thatcher has not been in power for 20 years and the issues are still bad, if not worse.
Your stats on relative poverty alone are meaningless. Everyone knows that, including the people using them for political point scoring.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
haha. That is poor, even by your standards. You now seem to be arguiing my point for me: since when has 'social breakdown' been exclusive of poverty. Ever notice how 'social breakdown' only occurs in poor areas? Odd, isn't it? And as for welfare dependancy, again, this points to poverty. You seem confused. Rather than 'ignore these issues' relative poverty highlights them, and their causes.
'Your stats on relative poverty alone are meaningless.'
Again, more dismissable opinion.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
No actually social breakdown happens in all economic brackets. Divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism, poor health, social isolation, crime, abortion, prostitution, family splits and so on occur in all places and all classes.
The problem is more evident in deprived places because they get all the press and govt. focus.
This is because they end up on welfare and become economically inactive. This creates more problems for everyone and places huge demands on the average worker.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'No actually social breakdown happens in all economic brackets. Divorce, domestic violence, alcoholism, poor health...occur in all places and all classes.'
So what are you now saying, that this did or did not increase under Thatcherism? You've completely lost sight of your argument, haven't you?
'The problem is more evident in deprived places because they get all the press and govt. focus.'
Haha, yes, because as we all know it doesn't REALLY exist at all, does it?.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Its been increasing since the 1960s. You choose to focus on one stat and twenty years ago to make some sort of empty political arguement that many people do not see as relevant to the role of government, like me. Theres no point talking about relative poverty and pumping money into a black hole. Socialists/liberals are unable to be honest and address the real issues.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'Its been increasing since the 1960s.'
Your proof?
'You choose to focus on one stat and twenty years ago to make some sort of empty political arguement'
Because that was what YOUR original post was about; what effect Thatcherism had on Britain! Do you suffer from Alzheimers, or are you just incapable of understanding an argument?
pshardhorny 2 years ago
Many of these issues can only be solved by individuals/families taking responsibility for themselves, eachother, where they live and how they live. They can get help but many want other people to solve all the problems for them. Socialism holds people back from being all they can be by making people victims, amotivated, living off the state and unable to lead their own lives fully as a result. Socialistic ideals have created the worst kind of sub culture possible in Britain.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
You ignored the increased investment in % of GDP into public services during this period, the benefits of low inflation, the challenges facing industry, recession, the growth in home ownership, the growth in share ownership, the growth in savings, the growth in small business.
You also ignore the growth in globalisation which would naturally impact on your relative poverty figures in the short term.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'Its naive to think the Rowntree Foundation has no social /politcial agenda when it produces reports'
What evidence do you have that they are biased? Are now claiming that facts cannot be trusted? What a ridiculous statement.
Like I said, either reply with evidence or shut up. Anyone can state an unfounded opinion.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
You have not shown any facts. They are as unbiased as the Centre for Social Justice which says the opposite to most left leaning groups using figures and evidence.
Like any stats, evidence and figures can be bended anyway a person or group likes.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
1979: distribution of national income for richest 10% of UK population: 20.6%; distribution for poorest 10%: 4.3%
1992: distribution of national income for richest 10%: 26.8%; distribution for poorest 10%: 2.8.
Source: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an independent social research group.
'Like any stats, evidence and figures can be bended anyway a person or group likes. '
Laughable. You now arguing 2+2 can be made into 5?
Now you provide some evidence for your mindless claims
pshardhorny 2 years ago
You seem to criticise Thatcher for that directly but cannot accept social liberals/socialists and think tanks do the same thing
You have no arguement why Thatcher was ever wrong about anything or how the evidence you seem to be harking on should make any shred of difference to govt. policy?
You are trying to gain credibility for a position without even knowing the solution.
An empty and useless observation about socially constructed ideas of poverty, much like Simon Hughes in this clip.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
'You seem to criticise Thatcher for that directly but cannot accept social liberals/socialists and think tanks do the same thing'
You are bewilderingly now claiming socialists and conservatives are essentially the same thing. You are appear to have really lost the argument here!
'You are trying to gain credibility for a position without even knowing the solution. '
No, I'm proving your previous claim wrong. You seem incapable of following an argument.
pshardhorny 2 years ago
God bless her!!! THAT is a real prime minister! No one in Britain knows how to stick it in those socialist left wing cunts like she did...If Britain doesn't get another Thatcher soon,in ten years she'll be just another socialist province of "Eurabia"....
grabac9 2 years ago
The government should provide a safety net and thats it. The present system we have is far far beyond that where people look to the govt. to solve all there problems for everything they should do themselves.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
nasty old cunt...
bongolicious 2 years ago
I can't wait until this nasty, evil bitch is dead... there will be street parties of the kind you've never seen!!!
bongolicious 2 years ago
What an awful woman she was. Unable to answer the questions she was asked. Just repeating "you want the poor poorer" which of course was complete crap. The issue was inequality, which has got much worse since the seventies.
realitycheck1883 2 years ago
She's basically right, you know...
If you're talking about the gap between rich and poor, you're always talking about the rich. Suppose, in an idealised situation, two prospects. In one, the poor make a pound a year, and the rich make a thousand pounds a year. In the other, the poor make twenty thousand pounds per year, and the rich make a trillion. Surely the latter is prefferable even if inequality increases by an enormous factor. This is basically what has happened over history
andrewsurtees 2 years ago
Thatchers policy was never to ignore or harm the disabled or the sick. But she felt families and the rich would gladly help such persons but not through socialist policy thats open to widespread abuse and waste.
I think its wrong for someone to say the conservative view was that a person keeps everything and helps noone even if they are poor via no fault, disabled , sick or dying.
BungleZippie 2 years ago
Yes,...I'm not British...I'm American, but a lot of people give, and donate and volunteer ON THEIR OWN. The govt is not the best way to help the poor. Other organizations....the Salvation Army did awesome work here after 9/11...the sacrifice of these people...the practical help they provided to the police and firefighters, the food, the counseling, etc, etc....
ChurchillTea 2 years ago
Evil bitch.
thepeterholland 2 years ago
utherpendragon, you are a selfish bastard if you don't want to help people who can't find work or are too ill to work. The bitch only got 44% of the vote and was a friend of General Pinochet.
rb1601 2 years ago
I love Thatcher.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
What a great woman. I work hard for my money. Why should I pay to help people who don't or cannot? That is the essential conservative policy, and that is why I support.
utherpendragon666 2 years ago
She is so right about their ideology
Avionicgenius 2 years ago 2
"Labour came to power telling us they had learnt the lessons of Thatcherism"
ie, the Labour bureaucrats learnt how to be Thatcher.
Spartacus21C 2 years ago
God bless her! I wish she was back in Downing Street...Britain would be strong and better off..
grabac9 2 years ago
She effectively never left Downing Street.
Spartacus21C 2 years ago
wow, you two seem to be having an intense arguement.
i just wanted to say that Margaret Thatcher seems to embrace the trend towards an expanding income gap. an expanding gap is a sign of a sickening society, but i feel it is a consequence of declining economic productivity also.
i would like to know the cause of the expansion of the gap.
everst 2 years ago
You europeans have been brainwashed to beleive everyone needs to be equal in result not in opportunities some people work harder some people are smarter some people create and invent instead of
watching their clocks till quiting time or demanding a dole check, why is it wrong to reward hard work why must succes be punished? inequality is a sign of a healthy
vital economy.. would you rather as thatcher states everyone be equally poor?
or unequally better off?
billyysands 2 years ago
im not european but if you look at american history, when was the economy at the peak of its health? when the income gap was minimal and domestic production was vibrant. now, we see domestic production probably near all time lows, and the income gap at an all time high.
if the income gap is narrow, then you have the workers in an economy engaged productively in a competitive manner. but when it is high, you see that domestic competition is reduced, as it is in this crony capitalist reality.
everst 2 years ago
Inflation
berthabern33805 2 years ago
economic growth
billyysands 2 years ago
If Bill Gates walks into a bar full of millionaires, one can say he owns 80% of the wealth in that room. It dosen't mean everyone else is poor. As long as everyone's real income is rising, it dosen't matter about the gap. The only people who care are fuckfaced Marxists who believe murder is equivalent to orgasm.
Mickmars90 2 years ago 2
DOWN WITH ISRAEL
amsterdam78 2 years ago
jew hater
billyysands 2 years ago
I hate Israel, big difference.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
you hate winners
billyysands 2 years ago
No, he hates fascists.
Spartacus21C 2 years ago
what a women!
billyysands 2 years ago
The worst PM in British history, and a well known american LapDog. The US had her and Britain by a leash for many years.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
Thankfully you wont be writing the history books and only die hard socialists would agree with such an ill considered comment.
LABOUR ALWAYS ENDS IN TEARS
berthabern33805 2 years ago
I'm a teacher, and publish work on this. You are biased, and can't see past your own check book or back account.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
I am on working Tax credit and because of the corruption in the family courts my family has been trashed, I have no pension but hell will freeze over before I vote Labour again. I suggest you read animal farm for your home work and give me an essay on the parallels to modern day Britain
berthabern33805 2 years ago
Animal farm was an anti Stalinist fable, but it was pro socialist. Re-read yours and you will see Orwell painted the basic tenets of "animalism" as right and good. The snowball character was based on Leon Trotsky for god sake. How do you teach it in your schools. Then again your a working class person against the working class party. We call those class traitors in the US.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
I referenced animal farm in reference to the MP'S expenses row, and class traitor I maybe but I am answerable to god not to some fake reality of the class structure, we are all equal.
berthabern33805 2 years ago
If the opium of the masses works for you, smoke away comrade.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
the opium for the intellectual class is marxist dogma it doesnt feed people
i looked at the data i studied the results
market policies do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people
and that was john stewart mills test for a good society..to hell with marxist nonsense it never produced anythng but misery and death
billyysands 2 years ago
oh rubbish your spusa?? my god that takes me back so was i oh 30 years ago..
class traitors? who in gods name uses language like that in the USA no one is soiclaist here exept a few crackpots!(like you)my grandfather worked for the railroad
al his life was a union member praised FDR for his helping the little guy
but in 1979 hed seen enough rubbish
and voted for reagan by 1988 i was 30
and had seen enough rubbish to and voted for bush1
i go back and forth i'mindependent
governement often
billyysands 2 years ago
does more harm than good
look at the mess we are in now!
i hope to good obama listens to reason and stops with this keynesian
spending hes like a bloody druken sailor with tax payers money
at least a drunken sailor spends his OWN money
billyysands 2 years ago
It;s not my fault you can not grasp a world without exploitation. Your little brain just can't handle Marxism because at heart you are a bush conservative Neo-con. You wish we could go back to Reagan and destroy not only the poor but the middle class then all. Thatcher put words in the mans mouth. If she were still in power we would be the first party to throw eggs at her passing car.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
Why do the Neo-con brigade always assume, that anyone who has the guts to express an opinion against their policies, is a Liberal or socialist? By primitive instinct, certain individuals, some of them Liberals and socialists, have their conscience pricked by material wealth and financial gain.
I call it snobbery,
PBLEY 2 years ago
I can grasp a world without exploitation, and haven't been exploited in the first 49 years, except when it came to divorce and in reality it was a price worth paying for total freedom.
berthabern33805 2 years ago
you not one of those rotters that abadoned you kids are you?
billyysands 2 years ago
No actually I brought them from 3 months old until present day ....eldest is now 19.
berthabern33805 2 years ago
well good for you.. she run off on you then? damned shame when women go bad.you seem to have a very high divorce rate in Britian i've often found that curious
billyysands 2 years ago
LISTEN YOU LITTLE SHIT
my little brain was polluted with those delusions of utopia for decades,
a world wihtout exploitation? youll never see it unless jesus comes down from heaven in a flying saucer, if he exists
its an idiotic pipe dream that can excuses in the young due to their idealism
and iinexperience if you still beleive in this utter rubbish when you get to be my age you belong in a mantal hospital socialism has created so much death and carnage so much human misery
billyysands 2 years ago
You are just lying, and it's not my fault you hate yourself. This is why I teach history, and my kids stay at home and get taught by their mother. No one has any brains anymore, like boiling a frog with these capitalists.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
lying? your deusional how old are you you fool, i used to be a socialist just by watching the world and change i could see that socialism was a mistake it did not work state industry and high tax
kept everyone equally miserable
you fool you fool you fool
billyysands 2 years ago
Now your just repeating thatchers lies. The left now and always have wanted to bring the poor up and the wealthiest down. It's not equal poverty, its an equalized middle class. Where none are to Rich and none are to poor. To believe in the hierarchy of monarchs and capitalist republics is just folly. Capitalists are self centered, and unable to make a lasting system. The socialist system has never been allowed to grow, always strangled by capitalist nations.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
i used to think that, she was a brave morla women who stood up tolazy thugs like you that would rather strike than do an honest days work i know i'm a lazy bugger i dont like world the difference is i admit it now and admire and respect those who get up do a days work and create wealth hats off to you honest men and women of honest labour and business! thank you for creating wealth! thank you!
billyysands 2 years ago
They create nothing but wage slaves, and you have the Gaul to thank them for it? Are you a man or a dog scrimping for the scraps? You have a slave mentality, a slave to capital.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
they deserve to be poor
billyysands 2 years ago
Now I see you for who you are. A sadist and a masochist. You desire to see all those you dream unworthy to death. You are nothing but a punk Neo-Nazi.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
dont call me names. i'm justelling the truth all you can do is call names
because the facts are against you.
and the nazis killed most of my family you call me a nazi again i'll sue you for slander and sick the adl on you
anti semite.
billyysands 2 years ago
You are a Nazi. It's plain the way you talk you are a fascist, if you are a Jew that just means you are a Zionist. Same thing in the end. They both heap blame on the poor for being poor and would rather all the smelly people disappear. Hope your catching the sarcasm, because i know your an idiot.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
i could sue you for slander..
billyysands 2 years ago
Name calling is both a logical fallacy and cognitive bias, and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear based on fearmongering tactics will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to denounce
billyysands 2 years ago
You use capitalist propaganda, so who's propaganda is the right one..let me guess, yours. You have an amazing ego.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
listen you little shit my ancestor were smellly people the WASPS wanted to dissappear, no irish no tialains no jew need apply we didnt have shit but we worked and worked and worked and we made something it is possible and you dont want to admit that because then you have to admit your own failure
billyysands 2 years ago
They were forced into a capitalist system that asked to much of them, children in mines, no medical care. My Great Grandfather died on the docks for fear of being fired, and my grandfather was a union organizer for the IWW. The work to pull the lower class up, and pull down the capitalist rich down is a noble cause.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
In 1936 American commentator H. L. Mencken wrote:
The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy
billyysands 2 years ago
you are living in an anachronistic fantasy land
billyysands 2 years ago
I'm a Trotskyist actually.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem.
Example: "If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traffic whatsoever."
billyysands 2 years ago
lol trotsky was a jew and a zionist
billyysands 2 years ago
Trotsky hated being Jewish, and was an atheist, NOT a Zionist.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
you hate being a loser dont you?
billyysands 2 years ago
I have a wife, a child, a home, and a good job at teaching; what part of my life is bad?
amsterdam78 2 years ago
well then why do resent people that are successes you live in the academic world
people in the public world go there because they cant make it in business
good stay there better there than on welfare but dont knock the people who payyour salary and actualy create wealth you teach? you shouldnt you sound like me exactly like me when i was 19
your an idiot!
billyysands 2 years ago
No punk, I'm nothing like you becuase i believe in the people, and after 17 years in the party have learned more and taught more then anyone you and your tiny world knows. I'm 30 with a wonderful wife and a child who both believe as i do. That socialism not only works, it is essential to our future.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
most people are idiots
you are thats for sure
no i take that back most people are basically good decent and just to busy to sift through lifes complexity
you prey on them with dogman and demogogery
people most people dont need your nanny state they just want the governement out of their lives so they can take care of themesleves and their families
billyysands 2 years ago
dogma
billyysands 2 years ago
It's people like you that keep my fire going, and the ones who will suffer most. "The end can justify the means, as long as there is something to justify the end." Leon Trotsky. I shed no tears for the blood of the bourgeoisie, for the blood of the proletariat is oceans deep.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
my god it like i'm talking to myself when i was twenty jesus i'll tell you what my dad used to tell me
grow up!
you want divide society by class or race or religon.. as long as we all have a level
playing field let people succeed or fail on their merits people spit on my ancestors when they came here funy accents
shabby cloths but did we sit around like you and cry no we worked
stop making excuses
just live you life and stop hating people becsause they did better than you
you do better
billyysands 2 years ago
Read Das Capital and get back to me on wage labor, i don't know if i have time to banter with a pathetic capitalist. All your talking points are from the McCarthy hand book. You sound like that old radio show "i married a communist." How about this, you take your punk ass to the 50's and leave the running of the world to the adults who actually care about people.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
zionism was a secualr socialist ideology based on jewish nationalism most zionists were secualarjewish socialists
and i don tsay that insult anyone its just a historical fact many ultra orthodox jews consider that stare of israel to be a blasphemy
billyysands 2 years ago
Israel was born from imperialism and should be wiped off the map. I do not recognize Israel as a state, i only recognize palestine.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
i'm an agnostic my parents were diest and decided that a bit of religon might help us so they sent us to the nearest church it was some protestant sect
oh methodists, nice people methodists
i support isreal because all people have a right to a homeland
palestinians? who?
the arab world is huge they can live in jordan, israel is tiny the size of new jersey
the jews fought bravely they earned their homeland
land belongs to theose strong enough to hold it
go yids, go israel
billyysands 2 years ago
עַיִן לְצִיּוֹן צוֹפִיָּה
billyysands 2 years ago
كل سلطة الفلسطينية. الانتفاضة
amsterdam78 2 years ago
thearabs are crybabys they attacked israel time and again and lost due to incopetance and cowardice the ydont deserve that land they lost
the world does not belong to losers
billyysands 2 years ago
You are pathetic. I hope you die of cancer, and poverty.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
billyysands 2 years ago
I have a wife, child, and job. I travel to South America and Europe during summers; what part about my life is so bad?
amsterdam78 2 years ago
and yet you feel inadequate dont you? admit it..people you grew up with
siblings friends classmates they did much better and you HATE THEM!
admit it,, i know you mr those who cant teach i know you..
billyysands 2 years ago
LMAO, you tried to use the old you cant do anything but teach remark, and screwed it up, I'm literally laughing spit on the screen LOL LOL LOL
amsterdam78 2 years ago
what else could you do? you are preaching an outdated marxist dogma that was discredited twenty years ago
and is the pablum of semi literate third worlders..if you didnt teach you be
fliiping burgers at Mac Donalds
billyysands 2 years ago
Yes, there are many burger flippers with a masters degree. What exactly is wrong with Burger flippers...ow wait, that's right, their losers, so not worth life. Guess we should go and kill some losers....right?
amsterdam78 2 years ago