General News Discussion

[eFestivals]

doesnt though does it?

yes it does. He said no one shares my views. That caller did.

So Barry is proven wrong via a random phone call I happened to have within a few hours of him saying that - a call I got, btw, as a result of the views I've previously expressed. Those views fitted with the ideas that person is exploring for the UN.

(I don't know with all certainty the caller really works for the UN of course, but it would be the weirdest made-up call ever if she didn't).

[hot_ice]

yes it does. He said no one shares my views. That caller did.

So Barry is proven wrong via a random phone call I happened to have within a few hours of him saying that - a call I got, btw, as a result of the views I've previously expressed. Those views fitted with the ideas that person is exploring for the UN.

(I don't know with all certainty the caller really works for the UN of course, but it would be the weirdest made-up call ever if she didn't).

[eFestivals]

I would imagine 99% of voters are like me. We pay our taxes but we have opinions on how it should be spent. Neil wants us to have no opinion and accept what the state tells us (or the state of Neil anyway)... Yet it isn't communism and its totally democratic

Everyone has opinions. Nothing of them having those opinions means those opinions are anything sensible.

Yes, I want people to accept go along with what the state tells them - but I also want that state to be formed by the *informed* views of the people within it, and for those informed views to be somewhere close to my own.

Which is funnily enough no different from Barry in regard to democracy.

But very different to Barry in regard to his self-serving purpose.

[eFestivals]

think he did say 99% would disagree with you not every single person in the whole world

you need to read back further.

[eFestivals]

How else can you spin it ?

I don't need to spin anything.

My views are what they are - including the view that there's no point trying to fight stupidity. So it's that stupidity that I have to live within.

How is my democratic view different to yours? It's not. Not a jot.

The difference comes with how that democracy would be used, nothing else.

[eFestivals]

If anyone offers even a slightly to differing view point Neil, you take it, change it, rewrite it, or try to box it off to the point its nothing like anything they where saying. You then finally remove their right to an opinion by saying no matter how you answer you mean x,y and z. Its childish.

If you can show me to be a tory c**t then I can just as easily show you to be an undemocratic communist.

But Barry, only tory c**ts believe in only paying taxes if there's something in it for them.

Nothing of that is anything about taxes. It's a tory invention, used a justification for lower taxes only on the basis that taxes should be lower because they say so.

You were saying only yesterday that if the USA can have the tax rates it does, why can't the UK. The answer is that the UK is not yet populated by only tory scumbags who think that paying taxes is only about the benefit they personally get from them.

[eFestivals]

That plus you actual political view is much like communist would behave and view the world

only to the extent that I challenge the established dogma which is what has led us into the fucked up position where tory c**ts like you think their views are views of social justice.

The established dogma is tory c**tishness. Some of us are able to recognise that.

Edited January 31, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You constantly say this but on many occasions I have said I am happy to pay more tax for things that don't relate to me.

and yet you choose to cash in on the taxes you've paid at every opportunity - on the basis of "I've paid it so I deserve it" - instead of allowing that money to go to things which are more deserving than you.

If you are happy to pay more in taxes for (only) other's benefit, why did you not create that situation around the need of glasses for your kid?

You are how you choose to act Barry. Not what you say that you don't act on.

I have a child and its totally natural that I might want any additional taxation in this area to help me as much as someone else.

but you don't need the same help as others Barry, by your own (constant) admission you are in the top 10%.

You don't need the same help but you think yourself deserving of the same help.

I don't need to keep calling you a tory c**t. You keep explaining by your own words that you are one.

[eFestivals]

More deserving than me ? I don't understand that...

My kid needs glasses as she was born with eye sight issues. She is entitled to NHS care and they agreed to fund a second pair as she had justification.

Are you seriously saying she is undeserving of NHS help ?

Like I said... Crazy...

I'm saying that social justice is about supporting people's basic needs.

That's as much about NOT supporting those whose basic needs are satisfied as it is about supporting those whose basic needs are not.

Your daughter has that basic need and I wouldn't dream of denying it to her.

But at the same time, you would have the same opinion if it were you with the same eye condition (that's not a guess, that's based on many of your comments over the years).

And the simple fact is that your family's basic needs are massively more than just covered (as proven by the 3 holidays a year), so your family has no need of that state support.

You bang on about the feckless and workshy, but what you object to really is their sense of entitlement (payments they're entitled to, via what they've paid into the system - those who do not pay anything in are almost exclusively those too disabled to work).... and yet you're demonstrating the same sense of entitlement, but an entitlement you believe you have when you're not in need.

Who are the ones taking the piss with their sense of entitlement? It's very definitely you, while it only might be some of those who you label as feckless and workshy.

You refuse to move in the direction of the better world you say you want. You are everything you condemn.

[eFestivals]

I suppose you point is I should get nothing at all, or my children in the example you posted. Because after all I can pay for it all myself.

I suppose that is like the American system some what.

I wonder if went down this route and I was forced to pay for my own health care. Who would be better off the private payer or the person who can only use the NHS. I think America show us the answer to that one. I am just surprised to hear someone like you push it.

I suppose your hatred and dogma lead ideals do go full circle at some point and bites back.

Personally I prefer to have an NHS available to all.

well of course you do - because you don't wish to shell out £15k to have each of your children come into the world (and bankrupt you if any suffered complications)... and all while still having to subsidise healthcare for the poor.

A simple tory cost benefit analysis has you liking the NHS more. Nowt to do with the fact of universal healthcare for all tho - that could be wasted on the feckless and workshy, after all.

Edited January 31, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I think you are trying to suggest above that if she didn't have this eye condition then I wouldn't appreciate the need for another family to get that support. And you say this assumption is based off things I have posted.

It's no huge assumption Barry - you bang on constantly (including for the last 24 hours) about how you're happy to pay more taxes but only if you're getting something back.

Nothing of that was qualified by "if my daughter is getting something back, I don't care about me getting something back". It was about *YOU* getting something back.

No unemployed person has any greater sense of entitlement than that.

Massive fan and supporter of the NHS so no idea what your dogma is telling you here.

It's about your dogma Barry, not mine. The dogma you have that says the sense of entitlement others have to the welfare system is wrong - because they're feckless and workshy (your words) - but your own sense of entitlement is fine.

Is there any point that 'need' comes into your thinking? Nope. Only 'entitlement'.

Edited January 31, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Universal healthcare is something I truly support... but im not allowed that opinion clearly Mr commi.

universal healthcare is about flattening the gap caused by money, and is funded by flattening the gap caused by money.

But it makes me a communist and Stalin's best mate for me to suggest that we flatten the gap caused by money.

OK.

[kaosmark2]

I suppose you point is I should get nothing at all, or my children in the example you posted. Because after all I can pay for it all myself.

I suppose that is like the American system some what.

I wonder if went down this route and I was forced to pay for my own health care. Who would be better off the private payer or the person who can only use the NHS. I think America show us the answer to that one. I am just surprised to hear someone like you push it.

I suppose your hatred and dogma lead ideals do go full circle at some point and bites back.

Personally I prefer to have an NHS available to all.

[kaosmark2]

It whipes out the motivation to actually move up the career ladder etc.

[Guest]

Some, a small number, are feckless and workshy. It can't be denied. its a fact. Deal with it....

[Guest]

We need to save money... So its worth looking at.

We need to raise money... So its worth looking at the few who do tax evasion as well.

The numbers doing it shouldn't matter. Its wrong and it shouldn't be supported.

[abdoujaparov]

We need to save money... So its worth looking at.

[abdoujaparov]

I love the NHS.

[eFestivals]

Some, a small number, are feckless and workshy. It can't be denied. its a fact. Deal with it....

I've dealt with it long long ago thanks. I've dealt with it and realised those people are too insignificant and cost the country such a tiny amount that they're not worthy of mention.

People in your position, however - small businessmen - cost the country far far more, from the small tax fiddles to the large ones, that created billionaires such as Branson (yes, really. The basis of his whole fortune is tax fraud

As for the rest. My point is, if the government want to turn around and ask for more tax to fund childcare then I would expect them to be also including our family in that provision. Its not an unfair or unreasonable response.

Yes it is an unfair and unreasonable response. You have no need for state support for childcare.

Meanwhile you demonstrate that your sense of entitlement waaaay outstrips anything of the 'feckless and workshy'. They have no choice but to rely on handouts, what's your excuse???

Anything I have said in the last 24 hours has been related to the issue of child care. But you take that and blow it up as me not wanting to pay any extra talk for anything at all. You are barmy. Actually your not are you. You know exactly what you are doing

I know what I'm doing no less than you know what you're doing.

You're acting on your greed, and I'm pointing out that your acting on your greed.

That's all there is to it. Nothing of that is about any sense of social justice. It's about your sense of entitlement.

You are not really interested in what I or anyone else really thinks. To you its all black and white. You are either a tory scum bag or you are a lovely little communist who can come live in your utopia. No middle ground is there.

you're right that I'm not really interested in what people like you think, because you demonstrate that you have nothing of sense to say.

You say you believe in social justice and then demonstrate that you don't. You believe only in what you can get. If others get something that you also want then you're happy for those crumbs to fall from your table, but otherwise they're feckless and workshy and very definitely undeserving. Why should they have any thing that you're not getting, eh Barry?

Oh well... Every site needs its crazy person.

And thank you for being just that.

I can't respect your views but I do respect your determination to stand behind them, even those you don't much understand what your own views are because you're unable to to see the big picture they add up to.

[eFestivals]

Universal public services are leagues leagues better for society than public services for the poor and letting the rich pay for their own.

well, yes.

But Barry doesn't understand what he's recommending there, does he? Which is why I've swerved it and and concentrated on something he can properly understand, the concept of need.

Barry, you do know that you're recommending a communist version of healthcare don't you? You know, everything you detest?

[eFestivals]

But Neil just picks this up and sticks it in the Tory box surprisingly .. Basically based of the fact I want to see some return as well for over paying into this system.

no, based wholely in your tory version of welfare, where those who get benefits you don't approve of are by default 'feckless and workshy' (yet who knows, they might be what they are because they started off with an eye condition the same as your daughters) while every benefit you can sweep up for yourself (without regard of the impact elsewhere of you doing that) is something you're always fully entitled to, an entitlement that others are undeserving of (because they're feckless and workshy).

It seems to me he thinks you are either someone who will unquestionably surrender money because its fair regardless of where that leaves you, or you are a c**t tory. No middle ground.

the middle ground is about helping those in need where none of that need is related to you - a middle ground that is stuffed full with the feckless and workshy IYO, who are always undeserving.

Benefits must be cut because you pay too much tax - you HAVE said that.

Benefits can only go up and your taxes can only go up if you personally are getting something from it - you HAVE said that.

Nowhere in there is there anything about the need people might have for greater benefits because it's not possible to live on the benefits they get; nowhere in there is anything about satisfying needs that are not your own.

Social justice is about doing something because it needs to be done, not by first asking "what's in it for me?". That question makes you tory by default, but you're too daft to recognise that.

The facts are that if I had to pay out for everything myself AND pay the current level of tax then the number would not add up.

PMSL.

The reality of that statement, if your claims of being in the top 10% is true, is that if you had to pay for everything yourself and still pay the current level of taxes you'd STILL be better off than most people in society.

So you either take me out of tax and say I have no access to services and I look after myself.

Or you ask me for more tax and also take some of the burdens I current face of me as well.

you've got no sense of entitlement have you Barry? PMSL.

When will you start to recognise that NOTHING about paying taxes is about how you personally benefit from them?

The fact that you believe paying taxes is about what you get back makes you a tory, and makes you not a believer in social justice.

Its pretty simple and reasonable stuff.

It';s definitely the first part of that.

And it's only the second if 'reasonable' means 'greedy'.

[eFestivals]

but I cant stand the NHS - it's inefficient, massively expensive, bureaucratic and impersonal

the NHS is far from perfect.

But it's twice as efficient and half as cheap and still giving better outcomes than what the free market is able to provide.

It can be improved of course. But it can be improved far less on current levels of funding than any evidence-free political soundbites such as you're making suggest.

[eFestivals]

I don't agree with this or with at least accepting it has to be all so expensive. If central government could properly control IT projects then it wouldn't have to be expensive.

if free-marketeers didn't rip govts off, then no differently lots of money could be saved.

Who is at most fault here? The govt for listening to 'experts' or those 'experts' who deliberately lie to fatten their pockets?

[eFestivals]

Yet you said above I don't deserver or need any universal services...

I said that you had no 'need' of universal services, and that your taking of those services leaves others in need.

Your view does not reconcile with any belief in social justice.

You are a nut job. The vast majority of people can clearly see this. Like I have said to you in the past you have not got the balls to take your "message" to the people because you would quite rightly be laughed off the face of the earth.

and as I've been very happy to admit, you're 100% right about that - apart from the 'balls' bit. There's no difference if I have the balls the balls or not, because the audience is always people like you.

I know I can't win the argument in the public domain. If I could I wouldn't have any need to say anything of this. But nothing about being able to win or lose the argument says whether what is being argued is wrong, only that people won't accept it as right.

You are a total extremist. Far to gone to listen to any reasoning from anyone but yourself.

but your 'reasoning' is not reasoning Barry, it's merely nuts.

There is nothing consistent to it, aside from your wish for your greed to win the argument. Yet the argument is not about greed, it's about social justice.

Been at this for two days now and its totally fruitless if you don't have any level of respect to listen to people beyond what you own dogma tells you is right. Keep listening to the voices Neil

why do you think I should respect the greed that is the WHOLE cause of the fucked up country we live in? The cause of the crisis that has you happy to see benefits cut on the basis that the recipients are 'feckless and workshy', while it's your own views which deny the opportunity to work and so make them what you condemn??

The is nothing reasonable or rational to your views. There is only greed.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

More generic bollocks with no evidence to support it. You are good at that.

Its usually a failure of government to properly spec projects and then when they want to make fundamental changes (usually due to a change of heart or government you can't blame the private sector for saying, well hang on, thats going to cost more.