107 replies to this topic

[tonyblair]

llcoolphil, on Oct 19 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

Why does it have less of an agenda than others? Because it prints an odd article that suggests we might like to be a bit more benevolent? Whilst at the same time promoting the aspirational lifestyle of capitalism to an nth degree because that's where its advertisng comes from. If you want to think that is in some way a different agenda then I think you're missing the agenda.

because it considers - sometimes - that what we have now (capitalism) might not be the only option. Part of it's (the Guardian) agenda is to be more open minded...

very different to the Mail's I suspect

Edited by tonyblair, 19 October 2009 - 09:53 PM.

[llcoolphil]

dr_billy, on Oct 19 2009, 10:36 PM, said:

Now that's radical political discourse!

I'm no economist, but sympathise with what you're saying, and agree the argument for letting the banks fail was hardly shouted from the rooftops. In a vindictive way I would have liked to have seen this happen to some extent, but can't imagine Britain, as a net importer of food and fuel, with an economy heavily based in the city, would have done too well. With this on the cards I think many would have adopted the "look after number 1" mindset and supported capitalism in the short term at least.

Im in two minds whether letting them collapse would have been good or bad. My radical side says it would have been interesting to see what emerged, my non-radical side says it would have been bloody hard work! Though being net importers of food and energy are going to be the two biggest issues facing UK Plc over the next 20 years - and determine future environmental policy.

Edited by llcoolphil, 19 October 2009 - 09:56 PM.

[llcoolphil]

tonyblair, on Oct 19 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

because it considers - sometimes - that what we have now (capitalism) might not be the only option. Part of it's (the Guardian) agenda is to be more open minded...

very different to the Mail's I suspect

Im just trawling through The Guardian website for an article that would fit the notion of challenging the status quo - I haven't found anything yet that advocates anything other than a different form of capittalism. But I'll keep looking

Interestingly, I have a clipping from The Mail that highlights 10 advantages of immigration - all of them supremely positive (if you're a capitalist - they're about entrepreneurship, lots of children to pay tax and fund pensions and the like, none about widening our own experience) and stuck in a little box on page 37 in the business section! Im trying to find it to link it.

[Billy09]

llcoolphil, on Oct 19 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

Im in two minds whether letting them collapse would have been good or bad. My radical side says it would have been interesting to see what emerged, my non-radical side says it would have been bloody hard work! Though being net importers of food and energy are going to be the two biggest issues facing UK Plc over the next 20 years - and determine future environmental policy.

Total poverty, collapsing infrastructure, starvation, and the rule of the mob appear in my mind.

Or is that Mad Max, I'm confused now.

I'll leave it to the government, they clearly want what's best for me.

[tonyblair]

llcoolphil, on Oct 19 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

Im just trawling through The Guardian website for an article that would fit the notion of challenging the status quo - I haven't found anything yet that advocates anything other than a different form of capittalism. But I'll keep looking

Interestingly, I have a clipping from The Mail that highlights 10 advantages of immigration - all of them supremely positive (if you're a capitalist - they're about entrepreneurship, lots of children to pay tax and fund pensions and the like, none about widening our own experience) and stuck in a little box on page 37 in the business section! Im trying to find it to link it.

there's Charlie Brooker...

[Breeze]

llcoolphil, on Oct 18 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

one thing that has to be recognised is that the Daily Mail is actually a bloody good newspaper - which is why it has such a good circulation and why it is held in such high regard in journalistic circles

Thanks I needed a chuckle today. Good circulation = Bloody good newspaper  

llcoolphil, on Oct 18 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

Anyone care to point me towards a better tabloid newspaper in Britain? And tell me why it's better.

Think this is called 'comparing down'. You may as well argue which is the best dogturd in Britain.

[coma girl]

Breeze, on Oct 21 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

Thanks I needed a chuckle today. Good circulation = Bloody good newspaper  



Think this is called 'comparing down'. You may as well argue which is the best dogturd in Britain.

  Great analogy

[gizmoman]

She's now (almost) apologised, http://www.dailymail...hen-Gately.html Thing is she's now tried to put a different spin on what she said when it is perfectly clear what a deliberately vindictive and provocative article it was. This week she refers to him as 'talented' when last week he 'couldn't carry a tune in a louis vuitton trunk' and was 'the posh spice of boyzone' If she had an ounce of decency she would have retracted the original article and given a full apology to Gately's  family, as it is we can see what a despicable creature she is.