Jxg

Posts: 1,537

September 2012

MavisCruet said:

Just wondering, how do you justify yourselves?

You fall into three types: Rich, wannabe rich, or massively credulous.

Massively credulous: well, too stupid to argue with, poor, oppressed by the Tories, feeds the hand that bites it, so to speak.

Wannabe
rich: see the power and wealth of their betters and masters, and want
to get in on the act.  Servile, supplicant scum, who will crawl over
their dying grandmother to clutch at the next hand hold on the greasy
pole.  Utterly reprehensible.

The
Rich: The real Tories.  Hooray Henries singing "Rah Rah Rah, we're
going to smash the oiks", perpetuating their position on centuries
of privilege, inbred to the point of idiocy.  It's strange
that because some warrior took land by force 800 years ago, leading to
'ownership' of this land, that the elite, now short of manpower and
arms, choose the rule of law to state that you can't take away that
privilege because doing it by force wouldn't be fair any more.  It's
like Chelsea fans getting annoyed by Man City, utter hypocrisy.  Utterly
self serving class whose only ambition for the nation is to have it run
'properly', i.e by people with no chins and Harris Tweed.

I
find it odd that the great British intellectual elite are so very often
left leaning, non land grabbing.  Ragged Trousered Philanthropists if
you will.

The
right produced such gems as Winston Churchill, a fat drunk who was born
in a palace, failed military exams as an officer, shot "savages" in
both India (and Pakistan as now) and Africa, was party to the creation
of the first concentration camps in which women and children died by
tens of thousands, was an utter disaster as First Lord of the Admiralty,
see Galipoli, before entering politics. He flitted between
whichever political party suited his needs and to get power.  

• He believed in the right and superiority of the Aryan race
• He set the Black and Tans on Ireland 
• He approved use of poison gas on Kurds
• He allowed MILLIONS to die of starvation in Bengal
• Called
  Ghandi a "half naked Fakir" despite him being eminently more educated
  than Churchill, and wished he would be trampled to death by an elephant.

He was in favour of Sufferage though.

He is the epitome of a Tory, and anyone who willingly aligns themselves to that ideal is almost invariably, one of the above.

-----------------

tl;dr

_FUCK THE COMMUNISTS

Jxg

Posts: 1,537

September 2012 Na, but seriously, you're grouping Tories into three groups. I tend to verge on the right because they promise (rarely deliver, but then what politician does these days?) to pay less  of my taxes to lazy fatarses who couldn't be _fucked to lift a finger during school and now expect free money because it's their human right. I dislike getting into political debates but any party that:

-Wants to offer amnesty to ALL illegal immigrants in this country (Liberal Democrats manifesto pre-coalition)
-Deems that everyone should deserve an equal pay (ALL Communist parties are formed under the root of this ideology, (from the BCP to the USSR) regardless of their role in the line of work (a doctor who gave up much of his time for 10 years to study medicine, who now saves lives daily, deserves the same pay as a farmer who decided that education was overrated? _fack off)
-Decides that the rich should be taxed more because they have more money (That's hardly fair, is it? Equal; maybe. Fair; Not at all. These people worked for their money and deserve an equal share of tax. They shouldn't be extorted because they earn more. Yeah, sure, they're still getting a truckload of notes every year, but the only people who gain riches and don't deserve it are those who are either born into it or win the lottery. Everyone else has devoted time to education or risked their entire wealth and livelihood in investments)

Is one that I try to refrain from following. Mavis, yer a legit bloke, but the way you have just generalised anyone who votes for the Conservatives makes me think of you no better than I do of a racist (by the way, isn't putting immigrants rights before those of your own peoples' one of the key themes of modern liberalism and socialism?)

MS-DOS

Posts: 116

September 2012 Not a Tory lover at all but I can't stand Labour the way they have got the country. Far too many 16 year old girls are getting pregnant because they know full well they can hide their fella in a cupboard and get a free house. Too many people in this country think it is the governments job to provide them with a job on a plate without working for it and if not that's ok because there is always the benefits and the council houses. The fact is the people who lose sleep in in the U.K are the people who work hard and do things by the book. Then don't get me started on the amount of foreigners who came over because their uncle radji told them about our lovely county (or benefits) and we then have to get told that they are offended by the countries flag. I hate the Conservatives for their lack of idea's (unless its a tax) but I hate Labour because they have let people take the **** for far too long.

escla

Posts: 2,450

September 2012 Iits niobdyd therr ?

blue32years

Posts: 16,291

September 2012 You'd know all about that with your catholic rant.


Hypocritical c*nt

MavisCruet

Posts: 1,794

September 2012

One of the huge problems I believe in the realm of 'wealth creators' is company law in the UK, it's softer than a fay boy's ****.

If you want to set up a Ltd Co, you need extensive expertise, a workable business model, capital, a demonstrably viable business, traceable assets and a good track record £500

GO to Europe and try the same.  Christ, Greece, the butt of all fiscal humour, to be limited you need (this is from memory and may not be accurate) to have run a registered business for three years whilst producing a turnover of a set amount (I think it was 18k).  Then you can be limited.  Here, it's a shambles.  I can't begin to go into the misfeasance, malfeasance, tax dodging and down right fraud I see monthly.

Immigration is a problem when the migrants are unlikely to add benefit.  One of the things I realised the other day is we will  no longer get any where near as many undergraduate EU migrants.  Cocking tuition fees at 9k will make EU citizens go  to the Jocks, Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys or anywhere except here.  Ditch the cream and go for the chaff.  Great.

EvertonfcNSNO

Posts: 1,252

September 2012

MavisCruet said:

Gandhi was tied to the caste system of Hinduism I suppose. I am not sure if that actually means he thought black people were scum.

-----------------

The caste system as a concept (I understand this is not real life) is that the four divisions are all fulfilling necessary roles. It is explained as the Brahman class being the head of the body (the intellectuals) the Kshadriyas being the arms (the soldiers) the vaishyas as the torso (the merchants) and the shudras as the legs (the working class). The idea is that the metaphorical body cannot function without one of these four aspects and as such each class is of the same importance in principle. Being that Ghandi was an intellectual he would have most likely have heard of this and would not have been tied to the misrepresentation of the original ideal.

Jxg

Posts: 1,537

September 2012 Okay Knoxy, thanks for saving me the trouble of finding the Wikipedia link that proves you wrong.

Net immigration to UK in '97: 325,000
Net immigration to UK in '08: 600,000

"Nothing to do with Labour". Right in the bulk of the text (if you weren't such a halfwit you'd have read your entire source before using it) it says:
    "In February 2011, the Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Milliband, stated that he thought that the Labour government's decision to permit
the unlimited immigration of eastern European migrants had been a
mistake, arguing that they had underestimated the potential number of
migrants and that the scale of migration had had a negative impact on
wages".
No further comment from me required.

"Many immigrants started their own businesses". That may or may not be true (depending on which sources you view) but the fact is that as immigration rises, unemployment rises. A country should only promote immigration (as Labour did) if there are too few people to fill the jobs required. Labour's solution for mass economic growth was "Screw it, shove a load of people in the country, gather more tax and call it multiculturalism". As we already had unemployment, the plan of mass-immigration was the wrong one to execute. Only if "the rate of jobs created > the rate of population growth" can you promote immigration. Only if "the rate of jobs created by immigrants > the rate of population growth" can you continue to promote immigration. The source of the immigration, be it the EU or Pakistan, is irrelevant to the situation. Immigration is immigration, regardless of its spawn.

Notice how immigration stagnated as we reached 2008. Why? Labour realised they had screwed up and the election was nearing. They tried to right their wrongs, but it was too late.

You're such a _fucking dumbass that it saddens me. If you're going to argue with me and call me a racist, at least show me the decency of providing a semi-reasonable argument. Back in your box, you liberal turd.

koolhandluke8

Posts: 3,003

September 2012 tories:

positives: enabled everyone the opportunity to purchase their own house
negatives: poll tax

Labour:

positives: used to support the working class
Negatives : Now dont....

You choose....

koolhandluke8

Posts: 3,003

September 2012

sambo applecart said:

I dont care, people will always moan regardless and not EVERYONE will ever be happy.......FACT

-----------------

Tories
positives: want england to be english
negatives: posh bstrds mainly with all the money

labour:
Positives: cant think of any
Negatives: want england to multicultural