Putting our own people before foreigners is racism shock!
Robert Henderson
Note: The perverted nature of the liberal bigot mind is never better
illustrated than when they are engaged in betraying their own people to
the interests of foreigners.
Thatcher as with the EU, made the right noises about immigration but
then abjectly failed to take action to make them a reality. Indeed, her
mad championing of the Single European Act, a consequence of her
infantile and incomprehending worship of the god Market, provided the
platform for much of the vast increase in immigration Britain has
experienced over the past 25 years because it gave 400 odd million EU
re3sidents the right to to settle and work in Britain. RH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/30/30-year-rule-thatcher-papers-
released
Papers released under 30 year rule reveal full force of Thatcher's fury
... the Downing Street papers also disclose a shocking degree of
personal racism in her own response to the Vietnamese boat people,
initially resisting an informal UN request that Britain take 10,000
refugees on the grounds that there would be riots in the streets if they
were given council housing ahead of "white citizens". She made clear to
her cabinet colleagues that she had "less objection to refugees such as
Rhodesians, Poles and Hungarians, since they could more easily be
assimilated into British society".
Mrs Thatcher even bizarrely proposed to the Australian prime minister,
Malcolm Fraser, that they jointly buy an Indonesian island to resettle
all the boat people. This forerunner of Oliver Letwin's 2003 idea for an
"asylum island" to take all of Britain's asylum seekers was only blocked
when Singapore complained that it would set up a rival entrepreneurial
city.
Visit the National Archives site for the 1979 papers
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/408.htm
Note: I would give a great deal to have been a fly on the wall at
cabinet meetings when she suggested that those in favour of vast numbers
of asylum seekers should be forced to take one into their own homes. The
faces of the liberal bigots in Tory clothing such as Carrington and
Whitelaw must have been a picture. RH
Telegraph
Margaret Thatcher complained about Asian immigration to Britain
Margaret Thatcher thought it was "quite wrong" for immigrants to get
council houses ahead of "white citizens", previously unpublished
government papers show.
By Jon Swaine
Published: 6:45AM GMT 30 Dec 2009
Lady Thatcher privately complained that too many Asian immigrants were
being allowed into Britain. Photo: JOHN DOWNING
Lord Carrington, who had visited refugee camps in Hong Kong where some
of the boat people were being held, gave a "vivid account" of the
conditions there, the minutes show.
He suggested that Britain take 10,000 of them over two years. Failure to
take a significant number would lead to a "damaging reaction" at home
and abroad, he said, and anything less than 10,000 would be "difficult
to sustain" on the world stage.
But Lady Thatcher said that there were already too many people coming
into Britain, according to the minutes.
She said that "with some exceptions there had been no humanitarian case
for accepting 1.5 million immigrants from south Asia and elsewhere. It
was essential to draw a line somewhere".
Mr Whitelaw entered the debate, suggesting to the prime minister that
refugees were a different matter to immigrants in general.
He said that according to letters he had received, opinion favoured the
accepting of more of the Vietnamese refugees.
Lady Thatcher responded that “in her view all those who wrote letters
in this sense should be invited to accept one into their homes," the
minutes disclose.
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Old Jinglebollocks
> 'Robert Henderson' wrote thus:
> Britain (but overwhelmingly w/r/t Labour, because of its global
> socialist agenda), there is a global political 'club' which all
> PMs and Presidents aspire to be a member of when they get into
> power, bending over backwards and surrendering their national
> interest to get a seat on the top table. The more they give away
> and betray their national interest, the higher up the global club
> rankings they rise. Photo ops of themselves with other world
> leaders is their ultimate climax.
>
> This political club overrides and takes precedence over the best
> interests of their citizens and is unaccountable to electorates.
>
> The price for not bowing to the demands of this global club is
> high. Global political isolation is unkind.
>
> The EU is one example of it in operation, where national interest
> is constantly subjugated by the political interest of creating a
> European Superstate. Hence the Lisbon Treaty, where Brown
> hid in a backroom to sign it like the coward he is, for fear he
> would be called a traitor. And countless other EU laws, few of
> which are ever sanctioned by our own Parliament and almost never
> by the British electorate. The climate change farce in Copenhagen
> is another example of it in operation. Much of the UN is another.
>
> Govts need to be brought to heel and held to account.
>
> When we elect a govt we should demand that their policies
> reflect our national interests, not the interests of unelected
> and unaccountable political crats elsewhere.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there's nobody to elect except more of the same.
It's a collective emotional state afflicting all of us.
We generate the politicians we deserve, creating our "leaders" out of
our own collective emotional state.
It's all there in George Orwell's "Animal Farm."
The great Steve Bell captured it here:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/08/15/bell512x384.jpg
William Black
> On Jan 1, 1:20 pm, aracari <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>> When we elect a govt we should demand that their policies
>> reflect our national interests, not the interests of unelected
>> and unaccountable political crats elsewhere.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> But there's nobody to elect except more of the same.
>
> It's a collective emotional state afflicting all of us.
>
> We generate the politicians we deserve, creating our "leaders" out of
> our own collective emotional state.
If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
The reality is that the major parties are so close together on just
about everything because they say what people want to hear.
Your views are an aberration.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
joe parkin
> Old Jinglebollocks wrote:
> >On Jan 1, 1:20 pm, aracari <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>
> > > When we elect a govt we should demand that their policies
> > > reflect our national interests, not the interests of unelected
> > > and unaccountable political crats elsewhere.- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------------- But there's nobody to elect except more of the
> > same.
> >
> > It's a collective emotional state afflicting all of us.
> >
> > We generate the politicians we deserve, creating our "leaders" out
> > of our own collective emotional state.
>
> If your views are so popular then stand for election and change
> things.
>
> The reality is that the major parties are so close together on just
> about everything because they say what people want to hear.
>
> Your views are an aberration.
And the Iraq conflict was wanted by a majority of people. The poll
tax.The death penalty. Speed limits. Face it, you may have the same
views, but millions do not.
They are allowed to get away with undesired actions and stances due to
one thing and one thing only. The apathy of the people.
Millions of people complain about immigration, but they are given the
old "if you don't like it, move" line from arse licking liberals.
Pretty soon, the balance is reached, where the immigrants hold so much
sway, they can overbalance the power in our political parties. Which is
the reason they are so loath to do anything to help.
--
Robert Henderson
<spamtrap@?.here.com.invalid> writes
>I believe Cameron will put the nation's interest first as much as he
>possibly can
"Doctor....." RH
re...@freeplace.net
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>
How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
such a corrupt electoral proccess?
rebel
************************************
SCIENCE flys you to the moon.
RELIGION flys you into buildings!
***************************************
Robert Peffers
"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
news:98bec550c09cc16d...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
> 'Old Jinglebollocks' wrote thus:
>
> most of them reside in the Conservative Party,
That just means you agree with them.
> although even some..
> of them have become infected with global politicism in an attempt
> to stay on side with the unelected crats and club of international
> politicians, all ingratiating each other and betraying their own
> nations to get a seat on the top table.
Why don't you get real and join the real World?
The hard facts are that all large companies are financed by shareholders
from all over the globe.
Much of the companies and financial institutions that operate in the UK are
either owned by foreign holding companies or have shareholders from many
countries, or both.
Just for starters, if you stopped foreign owners the power companies that
supply the UK would no longer exist.
You are living in a dream World
.
>
> Daniel Hannan MEP is one such person and I believe Cameron will
> put the nation's interest first as much as he possibly can. There
> are others.
Don't talk rubbish, Cameron's declared policy is to cut, cut, cut.
That would see exactly the same situation as Thatcher brought about - the
destruction of UK jobs, companies and a dive back into deep depression.
Trouble is that as Thatcher destroyed the UK manufacturing industry, steel,
gas, coal and much of her financial institutions, there is nothing left
except Scottish North Sea oil and the service sector.
There just are not enoght jobs in McDonald's, Southern Fried Chickens and
ASDA to earn enough in taxes to keep the country going.
Where on Earth did you learn economic policy?
into>
> As I write, I'm hearing that Brown is calling for *yet another*
> (groan) high level international conference about Yemen. This vile
> character is obsessed with international socialism, global
> agreements/treaties and actions, often completely outside of any
> national accountability.
God help the UK after such idiots as you get your way.
By the way, Brown is my constituency MP and I have actively campaigned
against him in every election he has ever stood in.
>
>>It's a collective emotional state afflicting all of us.
>>
>>We generate the politicians we deserve, creating our "leaders" out of
>>our own collective emotional state.
>>
>>It's all there in George Orwell's "Animal Farm."
>>
>>The great Steve Bell captured it here:
>>http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/08/15/bell512x384.jpg
>
My God! They base their political loyalties upon a writer of fiction and a
bloody cartoonist and expect people in the real World to take them
seriously!!!!
No wonder the UK is in line to sink without trace.
Will I tell you what will happen if you get your way?
Scotland, Wales will vote Labour and England will vote Tory.
There will be a massive swing to the independence parties and the UK will be
no more.
Then England will finally learn that she has been living off the backs of
the rest of the UK and will go into dramatic decline.
To get out of it Cameron, or his successor, will crack down even harder upon
all but the very most upper class and England become the poorest country in
Europe.
There is only one way out of a depression. You have to get the taxpayer
paying tax and bankrupt business pays no tax and neither does the
unemployed.
If you do a Cameron and cut, where you should not, you close business down
and throw people out of work. Out of work businesspeople and unemployed
workers draw out of the system,. If that causes you to cut some more then
you are on the way out.
--
Auld Bob
abelard
<peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>No wonder the UK is in line to sink without trace.
>Will I tell you what will happen if you get your way?
>Scotland, Wales will vote Labour and England will vote Tory.
>There will be a massive swing to the independence parties and the UK will be
>no more.
>Then England will finally learn that she has been living off the backs of
>the rest of the UK and will go into dramatic decline.
>To get out of it Cameron, or his successor, will crack down even harder upon
>all but the very most upper class and England become the poorest country in
>Europe.
>There is only one way out of a depression. You have to get the taxpayer
>paying tax and bankrupt business pays no tax and neither does the
>unemployed.
>If you do a Cameron and cut, where you should not, you close business down
>and throw people out of work. Out of work businesspeople and unemployed
>workers draw out of the system,. If that causes you to cut some more then
>you are on the way out.
the degree of nonsense you post is homeric...
socialist 'new' labour have *destroyed* the uk economy....
here is just some of the reality...
http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
><willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>>
>How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
>such a corrupt electoral proccess?
the problem is not the electoral system...
the problem is socialism and their inevitable incompetence
Andy
families up with religious bigotry.
It ain't Lewis Hamilton who chucks bricks through your window, Jenson
or Damon who run over your kids pissed up.... Chris Ewbank only does
his job, like soliders do, not like thugs who kick your mate
unconscious and cause them to drop out of college.
Britain has had enough of bullies and all their racist and sexist
friends. We think it is THEIR turn to be second class citizens for
once!
Do you want leaders who inspire you as individual men, women and
children rather than farm you like livestock...
I have no problem whatsoever with Nationalism. A nation has rich and
poor , minorities and majorities , natural integration and natural
segregation...
Apartheid is dead. Third reich is dead. When you are, do you want to
be missed? If so get yourself a life , job , hobby or girlfriend /
boyfriend of consensual age if possible.
In ain't any pop star that's the problem- their not emptying your bank
accounts. That's best left to chauvinist financiers and oppressive
regimes that execute women for the crime of being female. Cos sexist
pigs in the media have made stupid men hate women. Little fucking
boys, the lot of them.
Shove your IQ tests up your fucking arse, with your snobbery, racism
and abuse of women and kids. Are all of us guys who love daughters -
out of the English "man's club" or something? Hatred of the poor in
one true sign of lack of any sense of class, isn't it just.
Obviously you care so little about your own family that you'd disown
them if they were a different fucking colour or something. Please go
fuck up someone elses life like other child abusers - or maybe not.
"English guys have become emotional retards"....
Madonna Ciconne
AlanG
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:36:58 +0000, re...@freeplace.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
>><willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>>>
>>How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
>>such a corrupt electoral proccess?
>
>the problem is not the electoral system...
>the problem is socialism and their inevitable incompetence
all the main parties are socialist and incompetent to some degree.
The problem is an electoral system that makes it difficult for
individuals to get elected without sponsorship of a party.
Add in the lack of a constitution with teeth and we have problems.
AlanG
wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:42:50 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
><peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>No wonder the UK is in line to sink without trace.
>>Will I tell you what will happen if you get your way?
>>Scotland, Wales will vote Labour and England will vote Tory.
>>There will be a massive swing to the independence parties and the UK will be
>>no more.
>>Then England will finally learn that she has been living off the backs of
>>the rest of the UK and will go into dramatic decline.
>>To get out of it Cameron, or his successor, will crack down even harder upon
>>all but the very most upper class and England become the poorest country in
>>Europe.
>>There is only one way out of a depression. You have to get the taxpayer
>>paying tax and bankrupt business pays no tax and neither does the
>>unemployed.
>>If you do a Cameron and cut, where you should not, you close business down
>>and throw people out of work. Out of work businesspeople and unemployed
>>workers draw out of the system,. If that causes you to cut some more then
>>you are on the way out.
>
>the degree of nonsense you post is homeric...
>
>socialist 'new' labour have *destroyed* the uk economy....
And we all though the bankers had something to do with it
>here is just some of the reality...
>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
>
>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
What recovery and build?
The tories aren't in power
abelard
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:53:51 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:36:58 +0000, re...@freeplace.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
>>><willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>>>>
>>>How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
>>>such a corrupt electoral proccess?
>>
>>the problem is not the electoral system...
>>the problem is socialism and their inevitable incompetence
>
>all the main parties are socialist and incompetent to some degree.
by the greatest stretch of your enfeebled imagination....
but 99% or even 80% of sense still far out-trumps less than 1%
to be observed in socialist parties
>The problem is an electoral system that makes it difficult for
>individuals to get elected without sponsorship of a party.
any one with real ability can get into parliament if that be
their ambition...
that you have to achieve that via the tory party is not a huge
impediment...
the problem is the socialist 'new' labour party and the subversion
of the liberal party by socialist labour entryism
>Add in the lack of a constitution with teeth and we have problems.
in that you are correct....especially after 12 years of deliberate
socialist corruption and manipulation
regards
abelard
no 'we' didn't....only those with a very poor grasp of the
reality of economics within a fiat money regime
>>here is just some of the reality...
>>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
>>
>>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
>
>What recovery and build?
>The tories aren't in power
i suggest you look at the record at the link
regards
johannes
abelard wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:13:55 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:53:51 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:36:58 +0000, re...@freeplace.net wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
> >>><willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
> >>>>
> >>>How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
> >>>such a corrupt electoral proccess?
> >>
> >>the problem is not the electoral system...
> >>the problem is socialism and their inevitable incompetence
> >
> >all the main parties are socialist and incompetent to some degree.
>
> by the greatest stretch of your enfeebled imagination....
>
> but 99% or even 80% of sense still far out-trumps less than 1%
> to be observed in socialist parties
>
> >The problem is an electoral system that makes it difficult for
> >individuals to get elected without sponsorship of a party.
>
> any one with real ability can get into parliament if that be
> their ambition...
Anyone can get into parliament and become lobby fodder if that be
their ambition, but why should they?
AlanG
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:13:55 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:53:51 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:36:58 +0000, re...@freeplace.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
>>>><willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>>>>>
>>>>How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
>>>>such a corrupt electoral proccess?
>>>
>>>the problem is not the electoral system...
>>>the problem is socialism and their inevitable incompetence
>>
>>all the main parties are socialist and incompetent to some degree.
>
>by the greatest stretch of your enfeebled imagination....
>
>but 99% or even 80% of sense still far out-trumps less than 1%
> to be observed in socialist parties
They are all socialist. So are you
>
>>The problem is an electoral system that makes it difficult for
>>individuals to get elected without sponsorship of a party.
>
>any one with real ability can get into parliament if that be
> their ambition...
>that you have to achieve that via the tory party is not a huge
> impediment...
Yes it is. You have to compromise
>
>the problem is the socialist 'new' labour party and the subversion
> of the liberal party by socialist labour entryism
You left out the socialist tory party
>
>>Add in the lack of a constitution with teeth and we have problems.
>
>in that you are correct....especially after 12 years of deliberate
> socialist corruption and manipulation
>
60 years.
abelard
<jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
>
>
>abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:13:55 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:53:51 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:36:58 +0000, re...@freeplace.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
>> >>><willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>> >>>>
>> >>>How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
>> >>>such a corrupt electoral proccess?
>> >>
>> >>the problem is not the electoral system...
>> >>the problem is socialism and their inevitable incompetence
>> >
>> >all the main parties are socialist and incompetent to some degree.
>>
>> by the greatest stretch of your enfeebled imagination....
>>
>> but 99% or even 80% of sense still far out-trumps less than 1%
>> to be observed in socialist parties
>>
>> >The problem is an electoral system that makes it difficult for
>> >individuals to get elected without sponsorship of a party.
>>
>> any one with real ability can get into parliament if that be
>> their ambition...
>
>Anyone can get into parliament and become lobby fodder if that be
>their ambition, but why should they?
if you have ability, why would you expect that to be the
end of your 'achievements'
AlanG
wrote:
You mean the lending bubble that many of us forecast was going to
burst?
>
>>>here is just some of the reality...
>>>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
>>>
>>>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
>>
>>What recovery and build?
>>The tories aren't in power
>
>i suggest you look at the record at the link
>
It doesn't go back to 1970
johannes
Anyway I'm not eligible, but not hungry either to become lobby fodder.
There are many more worthwhile achievements you can do. But I expect
young alabard hopeful to come round canvassing anytime soon.
abelard
again, you don't understand economics in a fiat money regime
the 'lending bubble' is the very least of your problems
>>>>here is just some of the reality...
>>>>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
>>>>
>>>>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
>>>
>>>What recovery and build?
>>>The tories aren't in power
>>
>>i suggest you look at the record at the link
>>
>It doesn't go back to 1970
i'm sure you can find it if it concerns you enough...
1970s were socialists like heath and wislon and callaghan....
another decade lost to socialism
abelard
<jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
i have much more important tasks
William Black
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>>
> How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
> such a corrupt electoral proccess?
What makes you think it is corrupt?
William Black
Pompous prat.
johannes
The election campaign has begun, LOL!
Robert Peffers
"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:ekesj5hfio4sn3pu6...@4ax.com...
company with their former parties.
The thing about independents is that they have to either be well known or
have a really good platform to run on. Some have made it after some really
bad actions by an MP and going on a ticket of clean up parliament.
--
Auld Bob
johannes
If you want to go into politics, I recommend that you learn about capital
letters and punctuation. You find capital letters by the pressing the
arrow on the left side of keyboard.
AlanG
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>re...@freeplace.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>>>
>> How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
>> such a corrupt electoral proccess?
>
>What makes you think it is corrupt?
The registration process is designed to deter some electors from
registering.
The electoral process is not secret
The poorest are deterred from standingdue to the costs
AlanG
wrote:
Oh but I do
>
>the 'lending bubble' is the very least of your problems
It is the major problem when it causes loss of confidence in the
economy
>
>>>>>here is just some of the reality...
>>>>>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
>>>>>
>>>>>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
>>>>
>>>>What recovery and build?
>>>>The tories aren't in power
>>>
>>>i suggest you look at the record at the link
>>>
>>It doesn't go back to 1970
>
>i'm sure you can find it if it concerns you enough...
>
>1970s were socialists like heath and wislon and callaghan....
> another decade lost to socialism
>
So were the 80s and 90s
Robert Peffers
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:0vesj519c1oh82f7a...@4ax.com...
know little about politics and they treat the subject like a rabid
Christian, or rabid Muslim.
It then comes down to their particular Credo, I believe in *** *****, and
they can never give a lucid reason for their extreme views.
By the way they go on it seems they are motivated by hate, stupidity and
fear.
If a right wing paper prints any kind of lie they swallow it whole and it is
engraved upon their stone tablets forever more.Ask them for official
figures, though, and they quote a media rag or just spout rubbish that,
"They believe".
Mind you, extreme left wingers are little better.
Both extremes of the political spectrum are real nutters.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
--
Auld Bob
Lou Ravi
> again, you don't understand economics in a fiat money regime
>
> the 'lending bubble' is the very least of your problems
Oh I'm sure everyone is glad to hear that. No problem lads, the recession is
just a bit of fun.
How come you aren't the government's financial adviser Abelard? It couldn't
be beacause you spout utter bollocks thrice daily could it?
Lou Ravi
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:15:58 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:52:06 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>> wrote:
>>> socialist 'new' labour have *destroyed* the uk economy....
>>
>> And we all though the bankers had something to do with it
>
> no 'we' didn't....only those with a very poor grasp of the
> reality of economics within a fiat money regime
Bankers you mean.
Lou Ravi
> abelard wrote:
>> i have much more important tasks
> Pompous prat.
Seconded.
abelard
i have much more influence doing what i do...
William Black
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:57:59 +0000, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> re...@freeplace.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
>>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>>>>
>>> How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
>>> such a corrupt electoral proccess?
>> What makes you think it is corrupt?
>
> The registration process is designed to deter some electors from
> registering.
Example please.
Every house in the land is invited to take part.
> The electoral process is not secret
Yes it is.
The best you will get to is a copy of the 'marked register' which shows
who went to vote.
> The poorest are deterred from standingdue to the costs
There's no deposit for local elections.
abelard
how many bankers have lost out?
what do you think the word 'banker' implies?
(after you've made your evasive response)
ps
the head banker in a fiat economy has been brown the clown....
he is indeed monumentally incompetent and foolish....
Robert Peffers
>
> And we all though the bankers had something to do with it
>
>>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
>>
>>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
>
> What recovery and build?
> The tories aren't in power
>
The last Tory lot robbed the UK of its manufacturing base. Privatised the
services that the taxpayers owned and made the banks and financial
institutions into gamblers with other people's money.
Then this bunch of numpties have the stupid idea that it is all Labours
fault as others are out of the recession and the UK isn't. Thing is that the
others have a manufacturing base to get them out of depression and Thatcher
sold ours off, (and I'm not even a Labour voter).
--
Auld Bob
abelard
<jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
there is another one on the rhs
i don't need such trivia...
if i went into elected politics i'd use it....
your present pm is both near to dyslexic and thick...
the competition is not excessive....
even a medic needs greater ability and knowledge/training
abelard
<peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> i have much more important tasks
>Yes, we noticed them.
1)you are not a 'we'
2)i shall await greater evidence than your assertion
or your posts provide
Robert Peffers
"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
news:4837832e90915cd1...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
> 'AlanG' wrote thus:
> policy actions were under the control of one Mr Brown. He's the
> same man who ignored warnings given to him back in 2004.
Don't talk shit.
The whole World went into recession are you really blaming Brown for a World
wide recession?
Just what would a Tory Government have done to avoid the recession?
They would have had no more control over the financial institutions that
brought the World to its knees than Brown had?
Just explain to everyone the exact steps a Tory government would have taken
to prevent the recession?
My bet is you are big on blame but short on knowledge of political actions.
>
>>>>>here is just some of the reality...
>>>>>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
>>>>>
>>>>>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
>>>>
>>>>What recovery and build?
>>>>The tories aren't in power
>>>
>>>i suggest you look at the record at the link
>>>
>>It doesn't go back to 1970
>
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:57:59 +0000, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>re...@freeplace.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
>>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>>>>
>>> How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
>>> such a corrupt electoral proccess?
>>
>>What makes you think it is corrupt?
>
> The registration process is designed to deter some electors from
> registering.
It does nothing to stop any legitimate person from registering.
> The electoral process is not secret
Yes it is.
> The poorest are deterred from standingdue to the costs
Not really, it will only cost them money if they lose their deposit and,
unless they have no chance in the first place, they will not lose it.
Into the bargain, if they are good enough, they could be sponsored by such
as the trade Union, trade association, Co-op, CBI, Rotary Club, Community
Council, residents association.
--
Auld Bob
johannes
abelard wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:39:19 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
> <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>
> >> i have much more important tasks
>
> >Yes, we noticed them.
>
> 1)you are not a 'we'
> 2)i shall await greater evidence than your assertion
> or your posts provide
Yes, we noticed them.
johannes
abelard wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:42:38 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
> <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
> >abelard wrote:
> >> again, you don't understand economics in a fiat money regime
> >>
> >> the 'lending bubble' is the very least of your problems
> >
> >Oh I'm sure everyone is glad to hear that. No problem lads, the recession is
> >just a bit of fun.
> >
> >How come you aren't the government's financial adviser Abelard? It couldn't
> >be beacause you spout utter bollocks thrice daily could it?
>
> i have much more influence doing what i do...
What do you do?
abelard
educate
abelard
you also are not a 'we'...
neither have you any idea what peffers noticed...if anything....
your logic is a complete mess....
and the amount of time i will ever allocate to fools is strictly
rationed...
otherwise i'd waste that time and detract from my objectives
as yet i see very little evidence that using much time to assist you
to improve your reasoning ability would result in great profit
johannes
aracari wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Daniel Hannan MEP is one such person and I believe Cameron will
> put the nation's interest first as much as he possibly can. There
> are others.
Danial Hannan is a verbal gymnast, but he fell flat in an USA TV
discussion when he favoured the present USA health system over NHS.
johannes
abelard wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:11:42 +0000, johannes
> <jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >abelard wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:39:19 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
> >> <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> i have much more important tasks
> >>
> >> >Yes, we noticed them.
> >>
> >> 1)you are not a 'we'
> >> 2)i shall await greater evidence than your assertion
> >> or your posts provide
> >
> >Yes, we noticed them.
>
> you also are not a 'we'...
> neither have you any idea what peffers noticed...if anything....
School lesson: Two persons are 'we'..
abelard
<jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
repeat....you don't know what peffers noticed....
you assumption of a 'we' is *very* likely delusional
johannes
abelard wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:14:45 +0000, johannes
> <jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
>
> >abelard wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:42:38 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
> >> <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> >abelard wrote:
> >> >> again, you don't understand economics in a fiat money regime
> >> >>
> >> >> the 'lending bubble' is the very least of your problems
> >> >
> >> >Oh I'm sure everyone is glad to hear that. No problem lads, the recession is
> >> >just a bit of fun.
> >> >
> >> >How come you aren't the government's financial adviser Abelard? It couldn't
> >> >be beacause you spout utter bollocks thrice daily could it?
> >>
> >> i have much more influence doing what i do...
> >
> >What do you do?
>
> educate
But not very successful on usenet. Perhaps we are naughty pupils?
Lou Ravi
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:31:58 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
> <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:15:58 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:52:06 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> socialist 'new' labour have *destroyed* the uk economy....
>>>>
>>>> And we all though the bankers had something to do with it
>>>
>>> no 'we' didn't....only those with a very poor grasp of the
>>> reality of economics within a fiat money regime
>>
>> Bankers you mean.
>
> how many bankers have lost out?
> what do you think the word 'banker' implies?
> (after you've made your evasive response)
I never make evasive responses dearie, you're thinking of yourself again.
No one mentioned 'lost out' except your most illustrious and omniscient self
of course. It was a question of those responsible for 'destroying' the UK
economy and there I think you'll find that bankers played a very, very large
part by their greed, foolishness and incompetence.
Lou Ravi
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:42:38 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
> <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> again, you don't understand economics in a fiat money regime
>>>
>>> the 'lending bubble' is the very least of your problems
>>
>> Oh I'm sure everyone is glad to hear that. No problem lads, the
>> recession is just a bit of fun.
>>
>> How come you aren't the government's financial adviser Abelard? It
>> couldn't be beacause you spout utter bollocks thrice daily could it?
>
> i have much more influence doing what i do...
Being a pompous twat? No I don't think that has much use really, sorry to
disappoint you.
abelard
<jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
the world is oversupplied with fools and with the poorly educated...
one doesn't educate if one can't deal with foolishness....
if people were better educated there would be no call....
one person who learns is worth thousands who don't
you don't understand the trade or economics of education
Robert Peffers
> 'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:>>news:98bec550c09cc16d...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>> 'Old Jinglebollocks' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>>On Jan 1, 1:20 pm, aracari <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>>>>> 'Robert Henderson' wrote thus:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >Note: The perverted nature of the liberal bigot mind is never better
>>>>> >illustrated than when they are engaged in betraying their own people
>>>>> >to
>>>>> >the interests of foreigners.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Thatcher as with the EU, made the right noises about immigration but
>>>>> >then abjectly failed to take action to make them a reality. Indeed,
>>>>> >her
>>>>> >mad championing of the Single European Act, a consequence of her
>>>>> >infantile and incomprehending worship of the god Market, provided the
>>>>> >platform for much of the vast increase in immigration Britain has
>>>>> >experienced over the past 25 years because it gave 400 odd million EU
>>>>> >re3sidents the right to to settle and work in Britain. RH
>>>>>
>>>>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/30/30-year-rule-thatcher-papers-
>>>>> >released
>>>>>
>>>>> >Papers released under 30 year rule reveal full force of Thatcher's
>>>>> >fury
>>>>>
>>>>> >... the Downing Street papers also disclose a shocking degree of
>>>>> >personal racism in her own response to the Vietnamese boat people,
>>>>> >initially resisting an informal UN request that Britain take 10,000
>>>>> >refugees on the grounds that there would be riots in the streets if
>>>>> >they
>>>>> >were given council housing ahead of "white citizens". She made clear
>>>>> >to
>>>>> >her cabinet colleagues that she had "less objection to refugees such
>>>>> >as
>>>>> >Rhodesians, Poles and Hungarians, since they could more easily be
>>>>> >assimilated into British society".
>>>>>
>>>>> >Mrs Thatcher even bizarrely proposed to the Australian prime
>>>>> >minister,
>>>>> >Malcolm Fraser, that they jointly buy an Indonesian island to
>>>>> >resettle
>>>>> >all the boat people. This forerunner of Oliver Letwin's 2003 idea for
>>>>> >an
>>>>> >"asylum island" to take all of Britain's asylum seekers was only
>>>>> >blocked
>>>>> >when Singapore complained that it would set up a rival
>>>>> >entrepreneurial
>>>>> >city.
>>>>> >Visit the National Archives site for the 1979 papers
>>>>> >http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/408.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> >Note: I would give a great deal to have been a fly on the wall at
>>>>> >cabinet meetings when she suggested that those in favour of vast
>>>>> >numbers
>>>>> >of asylum seekers should be forced to take one into their own homes.
>>>>> >The
>>>>> >faces of the liberal bigots in Tory clothing such as Carrington and
>>>>> >Whitelaw must have been a picture. RH
>>>>>
>>>>> >Telegraph
>>>>> >Margaret Thatcher complained about Asian immigration to Britain
>>>>> >Margaret Thatcher thought it was "quite wrong" for immigrants to get
>>>>> >council houses ahead of "white citizens", previously unpublished
>>>>> >government papers show.
>>>>>
>>>>> >By Jon Swaine
>>>>> >Published: 6:45AM GMT 30 Dec 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> > Lady Thatcher privately complained that too many Asian immigrants
>>>>> > were
>>>>> >being allowed into Britain. Photo: JOHN DOWNING
>>>>> >Lord Carrington, who had visited refugee camps in Hong Kong where
>>>>> >some
>>>>> >of the boat people were being held, gave a "vivid account" of the
>>>>> >conditions there, the minutes show.
>>>>> >He suggested that Britain take 10,000 of them over two years. Failure
>>>>> >to
>>>>> >take a significant number would lead to a "damaging reaction" at home
>>>>> >and abroad, he said, and anything less than 10,000 would be
>>>>> >"difficult
>>>>> >to sustain" on the world stage.
>>>>> >But Lady Thatcher said that there were already too many people coming
>>>>> >into Britain, according to the minutes.
>>>>> >She said that "with some exceptions there had been no humanitarian
>>>>> >case
>>>>> >for accepting 1.5 million immigrants from south Asia and elsewhere.
>>>>> >It
>>>>> >was essential to draw a line somewhere".
>>>>> >Mr Whitelaw entered the debate, suggesting to the prime minister that
>>>>> >refugees were a different matter to immigrants in general.
>>>>> >He said that according to letters he had received, opinion favoured
>>>>> >the
>>>>> >accepting of more of the Vietnamese refugees.
>>>>> >Lady Thatcher responded that "in her view all those who wrote letters
>>>>> >in this sense should be invited to accept one into their homes," the
>>>>> >minutes disclose.
>>>>>
>>>>> These papers tell the hidden story of whoever is in power in
>>>>> Britain (but overwhelmingly w/r/t Labour, because of its global
>>>>> socialist agenda), there is a global political 'club' which all
>>>>> PMs and Presidents aspire to be a member of when they get into
>>>>> power, bending over backwards and surrendering their national
>>>>> interest to get a seat on the top table. The more they give away
>>>>> and betray their national interest, the higher up the global club
>>>>> rankings they rise. Photo ops of themselves with other world
>>>>> leaders is their ultimate climax.
>>>>>
>>>>> This political club overrides and takes precedence over the best
>>>>> interests of their citizens and is unaccountable to electorates.
>>>>>
>>>>> The price for not bowing to the demands of this global club is
>>>>> high. Global political isolation is unkind.
>>>>>
>>>>> The EU is one example of it in operation, where national interest
>>>>> is constantly subjugated by the political interest of creating a
>>>>> European Superstate. Hence the Lisbon Treaty, where Brown
>>>>> hid in a backroom to sign it like the coward he is, for fear he
>>>>> would be called a traitor. And countless other EU laws, few of
>>>>> which are ever sanctioned by our own Parliament and almost never
>>>>> by the British electorate. The climate change farce in Copenhagen
>>>>> is another example of it in operation. Much of the UN is another.
>>>>>
>>>>> Govts need to be brought to heel and held to account.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we elect a govt we should demand that their policies
>>>>> reflect our national interests, not the interests of unelected
>>>>> and unaccountable political crats elsewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>>But there's nobody to elect except more of the same.
>
>
>>> There are some good politicians who understand the problem and
>>> most of them reside in the Conservative Party,
>>
>>That just means you agree with them.
>
> It means what I said ...socialist govts in Britain and especially
> Brown's socialist govt do not see it as their duty to act on 'our'
> behalf or in 'our' best interests when elected into office
Just who are, "Our", in that statement?
> You
> can see their smug arrogance being displayed every day of the
> week.
I cannot say I've noticed them being any more arrogant , or smug than any
other group at Westminster.
> pends his time calling for more "global" or "international"
> treaties and agreements.
Are you suggesting that the UK should become introverted and withdraw from
the\World?
>
> They see the electoral process simply as getting them into office
> to impose 'their' will on to us using the levers of power. And
> they've done it with a vengeance, wrecking the economy in the
> process.
I've asked you before but you seem unable to explain your claim. What has
Brown done that ruined the economy?
He had no control over the private companies that brought the UK to its
knees.
The Government does not even control the bank of England now.
It was Thatcher who took away control of the coal, electricity, gas,
railways and public transport and it was Thatcher who took such as the TSB
away from the people and it was Thatcher who turnrd the ultra-careful
financial institutions into gamblers with other people's money.
So tell us just what actions a Tory Government would have taken to avoid a
WORLDWIDE recession?
>
>> companies are financed by shareholders
>>from all over the globe.
>>Much of the companies and financial institutions that operate in the UK
>>are
>>either owned by foreign holding companies or have shareholders from many
>>countries, or both.
>>Just for starters, if you stopped foreign owners the power companies that
>>supply the UK would no longer exist.
>>You are living in a dream World
>
> None of that has anything to do with my previous point.
> Would you like to try again?
It has everything to do with your points - You blame Brown for a recession
that he had nothing to do with creating?
>> possibly can. There
>>> are others.
>>
>>Don't talk rubbish, Cameron's declared policy is to cut, cut, cut.
>
> It IS in the nations's best interest to bring govt spending back
> into line with tax revenues. That will inevitably mean cutting a
> lot of socialist spending madness.
There are ways to make government cut backs without cutting jobs and
government functions.
Every person you throw out of work by cutting jobs belongs to an average
family of a couple with 2.5 children.
Each of them needs to be financed and, if out of work, they cannot spend so
the retail sector suffers and orders dry up. Then manufacturers have to pay
off people who add to the problem and shops pay of others and the spiral
goes down and down.
Do you know how the USA got out of the Great Depression?
> estroyed the UK manufacturing industry, steel,
>>gas, coal and much of her financial institutions, there is nothing left
>>except Scottish North Sea oil and the service sector.
>
> She did nothing of the sort. What she actually did was to arrest
> our decline into the economic sewer that socialism had driven us
> to. Again, consider what the alternatives were.
Rubbish! So was it just a coincidence that the pits shut, steel production
died, the car industry went elsewhere, the public sector services sector
ended up in private hands, The air services went too as did the defence
industry.
Telecomms went to private hands as did the railways - which, by the way, now
cost the taxpayer more than when nationalised. She onle deregulated public
transport.
We were left with dependence upon North Sea Oil, North Sea gas and the
deregulted financial services. We don't even make our own white goods now as
they went to Italy.
The Mad Cow was the head of the worst government of my lifetime.ay.
>
> You wouldn't make such daft remarks if you knew me :-)
>
>>By the way, Brown is my constituency MP and I have actively campaigned
>>against him in every election he has ever stood in.
>
> So what? You're still a socialist. They always hiss and fight
> among themselves for control of the levers of power.
What makes you think that I'm a socialist?
Just because I defend Brown from a load of obvious lies does not mean I'm a
socialist.
Name a single socialist policy that I have advocated?
You just have not got a clue about political matters and you seem motivated
much more by hate and myths than any real political sense.
Such is the way of extreme right wing political people.
You blame Brown for causing a World wide recession that any clear thinker
knows was caused more by USA financial institutions.
In point of fact both World wide recessions were caused be the USA and in
both cases the US government in power were right wing.
The truth of the matter is that right wing policy will always lead to
financial crisis as will extreme socialism, (communism is not socialism
anyway).
History proves those points.
--
Auld Bob
abelard
<j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
you never 'disappoint' me.....you are both simple and predictable
abelard
<j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>abelard wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:31:58 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>> <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:15:58 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:52:06 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> socialist 'new' labour have *destroyed* the uk economy....
>>>>>
>>>>> And we all though the bankers had something to do with it
>>>>
>>>> no 'we' didn't....only those with a very poor grasp of the
>>>> reality of economics within a fiat money regime
>>>
>>> Bankers you mean.
>>
>> how many bankers have lost out?
>> what do you think the word 'banker' implies?
>> (after you've made your evasive response)
>
>I never make evasive responses dearie, you're thinking of yourself again.
>
>No one mentioned 'lost out' except your most illustrious and omniscient self
>of course. It was a question of those responsible for 'destroying' the UK
>economy and there I think you'll find that bankers played a very, very large
>part by their greed, foolishness and incompetence.
you see....you evaded
>> ps
>> the head banker in a fiat economy has been brown the clown....
>> he is indeed monumentally incompetent and foolish....
>
--
Andy Walker
> The problem is an electoral system that makes it difficult for
> individuals to get elected without sponsorship of a party.
As a voter, how much attention do you pay to the sponsorship
of the candidates? Martin Bell, that bloke who wanted a hospital,
and the man who won a safe Labour seat against a parachute, not to
mention G. Galloway, all managed it; rumours have been rife that
Ms Rantzen and/or Ms Lumley will be standing at the next GE, and I
certainly wouldn't bet against their chances. Surely it has more
to do with popularity than with party membership/sponsorship?
The point about party membership is that it saves you having
to explain to the electorate what you stand for. If you have some
other way of explaining, eg because you appear on TV or because you
have a popular local cause, then you can manage without a party.
If you're an unpopular crackpot, ....
> Add in the lack of a constitution with teeth and we have problems.
No constitution "has teeth". It rules by consent. If there
is no consent, and sometimes even if there is, then the army steps
in, and the constitution is irrelevant.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
Robert Peffers
He is your PM too if you live in the UK.
That,little idiot, is what is known as democracy.
BTW: While you are making your usual stupid comments the MP in question is
actually doing the job.
You are not. In all probability you have never even met the man.
Now although I have never voted for him I do know him and he is nowhere near
being dyslexic and has a great deal more brains than you do.
Do you even know what dyslexia is?
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:39:19 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
> <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>
>>> i have much more important tasks
>
>>Yes, we noticed them.
>
> 1)you are not a 'we'
Oh! Yes we are.
There are two of us sitting here at the moment and there were three just a
few minutes ago.
> 2)i shall await greater evidence than your assertion
> or your posts provide
Oh! I forgot to mention the dog. There are three of us sitting at the two
computers on this home network.
>
> --
> web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
> energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year
> past
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
> the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
> good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
> only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:11:42 +0000, johannes
> <jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:39:19 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
>>> <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >> i have much more important tasks
>>>
>>> >Yes, we noticed them.
>>>
>>> 1)you are not a 'we'
>>> 2)i shall await greater evidence than your assertion
>>> or your posts provide
>>
>>Yes, we noticed them.
>
> you also are not a 'we'...
> neither have you any idea what peffers noticed...if anything....
>
> your logic is a complete mess....
> and the amount of time i will ever allocate to fools is strictly
> rationed...
Please be our, both of us, guest and toddle off.
>
> otherwise i'd waste that time and detract from my objectives
>
> as yet i see very little evidence that using much time to assist you
> to improve your reasoning ability would result in great profit
No profit whatsoever.
People who make the kind of judgements that you do are never likely to
change.
The simple reason being that your political leanings are not driven by logic
in the first place.
In the second place is your tendency to jump to silly conclusions.
You have claimed that I am a socialist yet I have never voted for a socialst
party in over 70 years.
Yet I have never advocated any socialist policies that you could name.
That means your logic is flawed as all my posts prove is that I am
anti-extreme right wing politics.
Actually you sound rather like one of those, "Priviledged few who want to
protect themselves", at the expense of the many.
I'm also extreme left wing politics.
Now! Answer this question that I'm sure will interest other posters.
What should Brown done that would have prevented the United Kingdom from
going into recesson?
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
Then you seem rather a poor teacher - what do you teach? Woodwork perhaps?
It certainly cannot be politics nor finance as you seem rather confused and
biased by both.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
recession and ruined the UK's economy that is a rather strange claim.
Not only that but as an educator you have been rather remiss by not
explaining, when asked, what Gordon Brown should, or could, have done to
prevent the UK going into the recession.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
Who is, "both"?
--
Auld Bob
abelard
<peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
you're even daft enough to believe the clown is intelligent!!
>Yet I have never advocated any socialist policies that you could name.
>That means your logic is flawed as all my posts prove is that I am
>anti-extreme right wing politics.
>Actually you sound rather like one of those, "Priviledged few who want to
>protect themselves", at the expense of the many.
>I'm also extreme left wing politics.
rotf....
>Now! Answer this question that I'm sure will interest other posters.
>What should Brown done that would have prevented the United Kingdom from
>going into recesson?
my part is not to 'interest other posters'...
there is such a catalogue of foolishness and incompetence
it would be hard to know where to start...
i've seen zero that he has done well...and there is nothing i've seen
that suggests even basic intelligence...
the only person the clown has ever serves is himself and his
self-interest...
'recession'? i doubt you have the slightest understanding of how
'the recession' was generated or aggravated by the clown...
the end of boom and bust...and yet you believe him intelligent....
now you are in a worse bust than any other g8 economy....
and he's trying to borrow his way out of that...
but then there is an election coming....
he has no interest outside himself....
in the long run that is the very reverse of intelligence....
still, if you're 70 + your childhood, it is hardly surprising that
you received no adequate education in economics....in britain
but then of course neither did the clown...
then add in the exaggerated ego of the clown and a ludicrous
attachment to socialism...
and nothing but disaster could ever be the outcome...
you also appear to suffer from the arrogance of ignorance....
just where does one start with such ignorance?
you are taken in by the clown....such naivete is badge enough for
your lack of analysis
how does one get you to the point you are less naive?
again that arrogance of ignorance....you actually believe you
have ability despite your ignorance...
one cannot educate a person who has no insight
first one must work to develop your insight!
you're in a self sustaining mental trap....
abelard
>For a person who claims Gordon Brown single headedly caused a World wide
>recession
i realise you are now getting desperate....but i'd rather you
did not resort to lies
>and ruined the UK's economy that is a rather strange claim.
a bad and ignorant plumber can wreck your house....
it does not take intelligence to destroy....and fool can
manage that
>Not only that but as an educator you have been rather remiss by not
>explaining, when asked, what Gordon Brown should, or could, have done to
>prevent the UK going into the recession.
kept out of politics
but the clown is not alone in his foolishness...
the world is never short of fools...it is the one thing always
in over supply
abelard
<peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:shpsj595fuhbv2fc8...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:14:45 +0000, johannes
>> <jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
>>
>>>abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:42:38 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
>>>> <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >abelard wrote:
>>>> >> again, you don't understand economics in a fiat money regime
>>>> >>
>>>> >> the 'lending bubble' is the very least of your problems
>>>> >
>>>> >Oh I'm sure everyone is glad to hear that. No problem lads, the
>>>> >recession is
>>>> >just a bit of fun.
>>>> >
>>>> >How come you aren't the government's financial adviser Abelard? It
>>>> >couldn't
>>>> >be beacause you spout utter bollocks thrice daily could it?
>>>>
>>>> i have much more influence doing what i do...
>>>
>>>What do you do?
>>
>> educate
>Then you seem rather a poor teacher - what do you teach? Woodwork perhaps?
>It certainly cannot be politics nor finance as you seem rather confused and
>biased by both.
stop thrashing about....
no it isn't politics or finance....
i teach reasoning....
nux vomica
> "abelard" <abela...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> > energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year
> > past
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
> > the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
> > good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
> > only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For a person who claims Gordon Brown single headedly caused a World wide
> recession and ruined the UK's economy that is a rather strange claim.
>
> Not only that but as an educator you have been rather remiss by not
> explaining, when asked, what Gordon Brown should, or could, have done to
> prevent the UK going into the recession.
> --
>
> Auld Bob
Well, he could have invaded other countries, enslaved their
populations and pillaged their wealth, couldn't he?
<nux vomica>
mrbawana2u
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:14:45 +0000, johannes
>
>
>
> <j...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
> >abelard wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:42:38 +0100, "Lou Ravi"
> >> <j.mur...@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>
> >> >abelard wrote:
> >> >> again, you don't understand economics in a fiat money regime
>
> >> >> the 'lending bubble' is the very least of your problems
>
> >> >Oh I'm sure everyone is glad to hear that. No problem lads, the recession is
> >> >just a bit of fun.
>
> >> >How come you aren't the government's financial adviser Abelard? It couldn't
> >> >be beacause you spout utter bollocks thrice daily could it?
>
> >> i have much more influence doing what i do...
>
> >What do you do?
>
> educate
retards teaching retards
Robert Henderson
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>If you do a Cameron and cut, where you should not, you close business down
>>and throw people out of work. Out of work businesspeople and unemployed
>>workers draw out of the system,. If that causes you to cut some more then
>>you are on the way out.
>
>the degree of nonsense you post is homeric...
You must make allowances. As a terminally senile Scotchman who lives in
fear of "THEM" spying on him from the meals-on-wheels van, Auld Bob
Doesn'tunderstandwhatisgoingoners has even less contact with reality and
even less computing power and memory than a Bonkers 9000 series
1947-vintage valve computer... RH
>
>socialist 'new' labour have *destroyed* the uk economy.... here is just
>some of the reality...
>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_0101
>10
>
>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
nux vomica
> Old Jinglebollocks wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 1:20 pm, aracari <spamtrap@váilable.here.com> wrote:
> >> When we elect a govt we should demand that their policies
> >> reflect our national interests, not the interests of unelected
>
>>>>>>>snip
>
> "Any number under six"
>
> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
> single handed with a quarterstaff.
> William Black
...however, he soon changed his mind about this following an
unfortunate skirmish involving 5 of the Dukes finest Spanish Precision
Sword-Throwers, which left Peeke with 5 swords firmly and somewhat
embarrassingly embedded in his buttocks:)
AlanG
wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 22:50:16 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
><peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Now! Answer this question that I'm sure will interest other posters.
>>What should Brown done that would have prevented the United Kingdom from
>>going into recesson?
>
>my part is not to 'interest other posters'...
>
>there is such a catalogue of foolishness and incompetence
> it would be hard to know where to start...
>i've seen zero that he has done well...and there is nothing i've seen
> that suggests even basic intelligence...
>
Why don't you answer the question Mr. Howard?
AlanG
wrote:
>AlanG wrote:
>> The problem is an electoral system that makes it difficult for
>> individuals to get elected without sponsorship of a party.
>
> As a voter, how much attention do you pay to the sponsorship
>of the candidates? Martin Bell, that bloke who wanted a hospital,
>and the man who won a safe Labour seat against a parachute, not to
>mention G. Galloway, all managed it;
For every voter who looks at the issues and the candidates impartially
there are a hundred who vote on party lines
> rumours have been rife that
>Ms Rantzen and/or Ms Lumley will be standing at the next GE, and I
>certainly wouldn't bet against their chances. Surely it has more
>to do with popularity than with party membership/sponsorship?
Party every time unless there is disgust with the party. There are
many examples of a sitting MP disowned by the party and getting
elected. That's where popularity comes in. Bell would never have got
elected without local disgust with the party
>
> The point about party membership is that it saves you having
>to explain to the electorate what you stand for. If you have some
>other way of explaining, eg because you appear on TV or because you
>have a popular local cause, then you can manage without a party.
>If you're an unpopular crackpot, ....
>
>> Add in the lack of a constitution with teeth and we have problems.
>
> No constitution "has teeth". It rules by consent.
The constitution is law.
>If there
>is no consent, and sometimes even if there is, then the army steps
>in, and the constitution is irrelevant.
When that happens the rule of law is absent
AlanG
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>AlanG wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:57:59 +0000, William Black
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> re...@freeplace.net wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:27:36 +0000, William Black
>>>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If your views are so popular then stand for election and change things.
>>>>>
>>>> How on earth can you change anything meaningful by participating in
>>>> such a corrupt electoral proccess?
>>> What makes you think it is corrupt?
>>
>> The registration process is designed to deter some electors from
>> registering.
>
>Example please.
>
>Every house in the land is invited to take part.
The electoral register is not private. Many people for one reason or
another want to keep their whereabouts secret. The debtor, the
missing wife or husband.
>
>> The electoral process is not secret
>
>Yes it is.
>
>The best you will get to is a copy of the 'marked register' which shows
>who went to vote.
Each ballot paper is marked linking it to a voter
>
>> The poorest are deterred from standing due to the costs
>
>There's no deposit for local elections.
There is for national ones
AlanG
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>'AlanG' wrote thus:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:24:00 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:15:58 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:52:06 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:42:50 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
>>>>><peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>No wonder the UK is in line to sink without trace.
>>>>>>Will I tell you what will happen if you get your way?
>>>>>>Scotland, Wales will vote Labour and England will vote Tory.
>>>>>>There will be a massive swing to the independence parties and the UK will be
>>>>>>no more.
>>>>>>Then England will finally learn that she has been living off the backs of
>>>>>>the rest of the UK and will go into dramatic decline.
>>>>>>To get out of it Cameron, or his successor, will crack down even harder upon
>>>>>>all but the very most upper class and England become the poorest country in
>>>>>>Europe.
>>>>>>There is only one way out of a depression. You have to get the taxpayer
>>>>>>paying tax and bankrupt business pays no tax and neither does the
>>>>>>unemployed.
>>>>>>If you do a Cameron and cut, where you should not, you close business down
>>>>>>and throw people out of work. Out of work businesspeople and unemployed
>>>>>>workers draw out of the system,. If that causes you to cut some more then
>>>>>>you are on the way out.
>>>>>
>>>>>the degree of nonsense you post is homeric...
>>>>>
>>>>>socialist 'new' labour have *destroyed* the uk economy....
>>>>
>>>>And we all though the bankers had something to do with it
>>>
>>>no 'we' didn't....only those with a very poor grasp of the
>>> reality of economics within a fiat money regime
>>
>>You mean the lending bubble that many of us forecast was going to
>>burst?
>
>There were many people who could see what might happen, but the
>policy actions were under the control of one Mr Brown. He's the
>same man who ignored warnings given to him back in 2004.
I didn't see Brown lending millions to people who had little chance of
paying it back except by inflation
>
>>>>>here is just some of the reality...
>>>>>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
>>>>>
>>>>>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
>>>>
>>>>What recovery and build?
>>>>The tories aren't in power
>>>
>>>i suggest you look at the record at the link
>>>
>>It doesn't go back to 1970
AlanG
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>'Robert Peffers' wrote thus:
>
>>"aracari" <spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote in message
>>news:4837832e90915cd1...@aracari.127.0.0.1...
>>> 'AlanG' wrote thus:
>
>>>>You mean the lending bubble that many of us forecast was going to
>>>>burst?
>>>
>>> There were many people who could see what might happen, but the
>>> policy actions were under the control of one Mr Brown. He's the
>>> same man who ignored warnings given to him back in 2004.
>>
>>Don't talk shit.
>>The whole World went into recession are you really blaming Brown for a World
>>wide recession?
>>Just what would a Tory Government have done to avoid the recession?
>>They would have had no more control over the financial institutions that
>>brought the World to its knees than Brown had?
>>Just explain to everyone the exact steps a Tory government would have taken
>>to prevent the recession?
>>
>>My bet is you are big on blame but short on knowledge of political actions.
>
>My bet is you are big on socialist mantras but short on honesty.
Answer the question Mr Howard
AlanG
<peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>news:2sesj5pb5jlv1d32s...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:52:06 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>> wrote:
>>>here is just some of the reality...
>>>http://www.abelard.org/news/politics012010.php#new_socialist_record_010110
>>>
>>>the contrast with the recovery and build under the tory party is stark
>>
>> What recovery and build?
>> The tories aren't in power
>>
>Short memories.
>The last Tory lot robbed the UK of its manufacturing base. Privatised the
>services that the taxpayers owned and made the banks and financial
>institutions into gamblers with other people's money.
Indeed.
We ended up with an unbalanced economic state where we had to rely on
other countries to manufacture what we needed,
>Then this bunch of numpties have the stupid idea that it is all Labours
>fault as others are out of the recession and the UK isn't. Thing is that the
>others have a manufacturing base to get them out of depression and Thatcher
>sold ours off, (and I'm not even a Labour voter).
Go back to the Heath government for the start of this mess
William Black
Ho ho ho...
--
William Black
William Black
You've come up with a series of trivial reasons, some verging on the
paranoid, for not getting involved in politics.
The real reason is either you are paranoid or you don't have the ability.
I don't really care which.
The only avenue left open to you is violent revolution, although I get
the impression that you're against things rather than being for anything
much.
I await the sound of gunfire from the hills...
William Black
> On Jan 1, 2:27 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Old Jinglebollocks wrote:
>>>> When we elect a govt we should demand that their policies
>>>> reflect our national interests, not the interests of unelected
>>>> and unaccountable political crats elsewhere.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> snip
>
>
>> "Any number under six"
>>
>> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
>> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
>> single handed with a quarterstaff.
>
>> William Black
>
> ...however, he soon changed his mind about this following an
> unfortunate skirmish involving 5 of the Dukes finest Spanish Precision
> Sword-Throwers, which left Peeke with 5 swords firmly and somewhat
> embarrassingly embedded in his buttocks:)
>
Oh God, the loony tunes are answering signatures now...
--
William Black
nux vomica
> nux vomica wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2:27 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Old Jinglebollocks wrote:
> >>>> When we elect a govt we should demand that their policies
> >>>> reflect our national interests, not the interests of unelected
> >>>> and unaccountable political crats elsewhere.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> snip
>
> >> "Any number under six"
>
> >> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> >> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
> >> single handed with a quarterstaff.
>
> >> William Black
>
> > ...however, he soon changed his mind about this following an
> > unfortunate skirmish involving 5 of the Dukes finest Spanish Precision
> > Sword-Throwers, which left Peeke with 5 swords firmly and somewhat
> > embarrassingly embedded in his buttocks:)
>
> Oh God, the loony tunes are answering signatures now...
>
> --
> William Black
>
> "Any number under six"
>
> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
> single handed with a quarterstaff.
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff, however, he soon changed his mind
about this following an unfortunate skirmish involving 5 of the Dukes
finest Spanish Precision Sword-Throwers, which left Peeke with 5
swords firmly and somewhat embarrassingly embedded in his buttocks:)
Sorry, no offence intended but I thought it made a fitting end for
Peeke and for a daft sig file!
<nux vomica>
William Black
> On Jan 2, 12:03 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> nux vomica wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 2:27 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Old Jinglebollocks wrote:
It's a pity you can't tell the difference between truth and fiction.
But never mind, you never could...
AlanG
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
No.
I gave examples of the way the electoral process in the UK is corrupt.
Nothing to do with getting involved in politics.
This reading and understanding getting a bit difficult for you?
William Black
It's not corrupt, the potential for jewellery for corruption exists.
This potential exists in all electoral systems.
Have you any evidence that any of the various returning officers and
electoral offices in the UK are corrupt?
If you have then you should report it at once to the appropriate
authorities. It is a very serious crime.
abelard
i have answered the question mister goebbels...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
AlanG
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>'AlanG' wrote thus:
>I gave Auld Bob some space for a while but debates become
>circuitous. He finally admitted to being "hard left wing", that
>explained the problem.
I'm not really bothered by his political leanings. He posted a valid
question that needs answering given the slagging off Brown is getting
from you and Abelard. I am no fan of Brown or the labour party,
Indeed I detest them as much as I detest the tories but if you
criticise his actions then at least explain how you could have
mitigated the situation if you were in charge of the economy.
Merely repeating 'Brown is a clown' and 'you're a socialist' ad
nauseum just gets me hitting the kill thread button.
AlanG
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>Nor me. But I did see him running an interest rate regime which
>encouraged borrowing/lending to create an economic bubble. Like I
>said, he was warned back in 2004 about the overheating consumer
>credit bubble but chose to ignore it because taxes were rolling
>in.
But he wasn't alone in that. Virtually the whole western economy was
doing the same.
AlanG
wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:41:42 +0000, AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:15:31 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 22:50:16 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
>>><peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>Now! Answer this question that I'm sure will interest other posters.
>>>>What should Brown done that would have prevented the United Kingdom from
>>>>going into recesson?
>>>
>>>my part is not to 'interest other posters'...
>>>
>>>there is such a catalogue of foolishness and incompetence
>>> it would be hard to know where to start...
>>>i've seen zero that he has done well...and there is nothing i've seen
>>> that suggests even basic intelligence...
>
>>Why don't you answer the question Mr. Howard?
>
>i have answered the question mister goebbels...
With the greatest respect Mr Howard you haven't
AlanG
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Jewellery?
>
>This potential exists in all electoral systems.
We are discussing the UK system
>
>Have you any evidence that any of the various returning officers and
>electoral offices in the UK are corrupt?
The system is corrupt. It permits deterrence of those seeking to
exercise their political rights
Robert Peffers
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:11:42 +0000, johannes
>>> <jo...@sizefit3566775888ter.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:39:19 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
>>>>> <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >Yes, we noticed them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1)you are not a 'we'
>>>>> 2)i shall await greater evidence than your assertion
>>>>> or your posts provide
>>>>
>>>>Yes, we noticed them.
>>>
>>> you also are not a 'we'...
>>> neither have you any idea what peffers noticed...if anything....
>>>
>>> your logic is a complete mess....
>>> and the amount of time i will ever allocate to fools is strictly
>>> rationed...
>>
>>Please be our, both of us, guest and toddle off.
>>>
>>> otherwise i'd waste that time and detract from my objectives
>>>
>>> as yet i see very little evidence that using much time to assist you
>>> to improve your reasoning ability would result in great profit
>>
>>No profit whatsoever.
>>People who make the kind of judgements that you do are never likely to
>>change.
>>The simple reason being that your political leanings are not driven by
>>logic
>>in the first place.
>>In the second place is your tendency to jump to silly conclusions.
>>You have claimed that I am a socialist yet I have never voted for a
>>socialst
>>party in over 70 years.
>
> you're even daft enough to believe the clown is intelligent!!
Whatever makes you assume I do?
>
>>Yet I have never advocated any socialist policies that you could name.
>>That means your logic is flawed as all my posts prove is that I am
>>anti-extreme right wing politics.
>>Actually you sound rather like one of those, "Priviledged few who want to
>>protect themselves", at the expense of the many.
>>I'm also extreme left wing politics.
>
> rotf....
Could such hilarity be a sign of madness, it often is.
>
>>Now! Answer this question that I'm sure will interest other posters.
>>What should Brown done that would have prevented the United Kingdom from
>>going into recesson?
>
> my part is not to 'interest other posters'...
Then your part has been admirable fulfilled.
>
> there is such a catalogue of foolishness and incompetence
> it would be hard to know where to start...
> i've seen zero that he has done well...and there is nothing i've seen
> that suggests even basic intelligence...
>
> the only person the clown has ever serves is himself and his
> self-interest...
<Chuckle> How apt the above comes from someone who claims the PM is
dyslexic.
>
> 'recession'? i doubt you have the slightest understanding of how
> 'the recession' was generated or aggravated by the clown...
>
While the PM could have affected the results of the World wide depression
upon the UK any claim that he was responsible for it shows the claimant is
quite ignorant of World wide, and UK, economy workings.
> the end of boom and bust...and yet you believe him intelligent....
In fact his term as Chancellor was indeed the longest unbroken period of
sustained growth that the UK has ever enjoyed.
Furthermore, that growth only ended after he stopped being the Chancellor.
In case you had not noticed Alistair Darling was Chancellor when the World
wide recession, that led to the depression, began.
Furthermore, it began in the USA where the financial pattern that the Mad
Cow admired so much, and imported to the UK, has long been the norm.
>
> now you are in a worse bust than any other g8 economy....
> and he's trying to borrow his way out of that...
> but then there is an election coming....
>
Is it not strange how self appointed ecomony experts are so uneducated in
the subject that they follow the ecomomic policies that have led the World
into recessions yet do not know the only successful method of ending them?
I asked already but got no answer, How did the USA manage its economy to end
the Great Depression?
Perhaps the question should have been, "How did the USA get us into the
Great Depression?
Remember that the Great Depression began under Hoover, and his deep belief
was a policy known as, "The Efficiency Movement", that held government and
the economy were riddled with inefficiency and waste, and could be improved
by experts who could identify the problems and solve them". Sound familiar
to you, does it?
The very healthy USA ecomomy went into The Great Depression and dragged the
rest of the World down with it.
The end of the Great Depression ended in the USA under Franklin Delano
Roosevelt , who followed the policy known as, "The New Deal", which was
basically the Keynesian Theory and was summed up as, "The 3Rs". of giving
Relief to the unemployed and badly hurt farmers, Reform of business and
financial practices, and promoting Recovery of the economy during
depression. Sound familiar too?
> he has no interest outside himself....
> in the long run that is the very reverse of intelligence....
Your evidence for that claim is, what?
>
> still, if you're 70 + your childhood, it is hardly surprising that
> you received no adequate education in economics....in britain
> but then of course neither did the clown...
What a stupid claim. You have no knowledge, whatsoever, in what my education
has been.
Therefore, you are once more making rash assumptions. You are very prone to
do this as your posts show.
I can only presume it is only further evidence of your many attempts to
insult anyone who has other beliefs than your own.
>
> then add in the exaggerated ego of the clown and a ludicrous
> attachment to socialism...
> and nothing but disaster could ever be the outcome...
That clown is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - what are you?
>
> you also appear to suffer from the arrogance of ignorance....
>
> just where does one start with such ignorance?
In fact I'm a very humble person but it seems to me that the best person to
answer your question is yourself.
Your ignorance is obvious to anyone reading your piosts and the arrogance
that sees you, a nobody, calling the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
silly names is also plain to see.
>
> you are taken in by the clown....such naivete is badge enough for
> your lack of analysis
At least I have made an analysis and have shown conclusions resulting from
that.
BTW: I state again that I have never voted for Gordon Brown although he is
my constituency MP.
You, though, have made no such analysis but instead has made many charges of
several kinds against the posters on these groups and about the Labour Party
and Gordon Brown.
I repeat I do not vote Labour.
Your assumptions and charges without facts marks you out as a fool, arrogant
and ignorant.
In short you are high on accusations and short on facts to back them up.
No one debates with you for you neither listen nor think.
There can be no debate with anyone who spouts dogma for thought and makes
baseless assumptions about your opponents.
You have no idea of what my politics are, you only know what they are not as
all I have done is prove your beliefs to be utter rubbish.
From that you make the leap to me being a labour party supporter, not to
mention your assumptions about my education based only upon my age.
For all you know I could be teaching political science at a leading
University.
As for my political views - your sole knowledge is that they do not agree
with your extreme views.
>
> how does one get you to the point you are less naive?
> again that arrogance of ignorance....you actually believe you
> have ability despite your ignorance...
>
The only person in this thread showing great arrogance is you and the only
one showing ignorance is also you.
You seem unable to do anything other than call the labour party, Gordon
Brown and anyone who does not agree with you ignorant and arrogant.
Yet to spout your hate and condemnations without being able to state valid
resons is the height of ignorance and arrogant in the extreme.
> one cannot educate a person who has no insight
That is the first sane thing you have ever said in this thread.
Considering the only person who has made rash claims, but without any valid
reasons, is none other than yourself I detect that we just may be seeing the
dawning of some insight in yourself.
>
> first one must work to develop your insight!
>
> you're in a self sustaining mental trap...
I'm not the one in a trapped mindset.
I'm the one giving reasons for the economic state of both the UK and the
larger World.
I'm the one, who doesn't vote Labour, who is telling you your
unsubstantiated accusation against both Brown and Labour anr just that -
unsubstantiated.
I'm also the one offering evidence of how/where the recession came about and
how history shows how past depressions were overcome.
You are the one doing no more than laying the blame at the door of 10
Downing Street when the thing started on the other side of the Atlantic and
could not be the fault of the UK government.
You cannot be taken seriously unless you can do more than make
unsubstantiated accusations.
Blind, parroted, soundbites of sheer hate and loathing will convince readers
only that you are ignorant, stupid and arrogant.
Answer the questions - numptie.
--
Auld Bob