"we're all in this together"

[Peter Dow]

You'll be getting sectioned again Pete (do you mind me calling you Pete?). Mind you, that would just be categoric reassurance that they're trying to silence the only legitimate opposition eh!

[worm]

Edited October 25, 2010 by worm

[llcoolphil]

[Peter Dow]

Whilst I acknowledge we can only judge people insane against a scale of what society accepts as normal, your apparent state of mind is somewhat different to simply pretending to hear the word 'thud' really, isn't it. It takes some thinking outside the box to reach the conclusion that the only way to legitimately oppose welfare cuts is to murder the monarch. I mean, how do they manage in France, where there has been serious opposition to raising the age of retirement, when they have no monarch to oppose? You don't think you could be putting two things together that actually have no relationship to suit your own tyrannical ends do you? Behaving just like those pesky royalists you abhor?

[llcoolphil]

It seems that it takes a science degree to identify the relationship between Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government.

[Paul ™]

f**k SAKE

[eFestivals]

This is also irrelevant to the point. The point is whether or not the POLICY is ideological and I've said that their reasoning is irrelevant in relation to this. Stick to the point man.

that's YOUR point.

It's nothing to do with anything that I've said. I've said that the tory cutting is ideologically led, and it is.

As Coolphil said, you're playing the village idiot.

says the man who invents an argument to have on nothing anyone's said.

[Steve P]

It seems that it takes a science degree to identify the relationship between Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government.

[sifi]

To be fair, we aren't talking about a relationship between HM and HMG are we - we are talking about a relationship between opposing welfare cuts and murder. And as I pointed out to you, governments without a monarch find even greater opposition to their actions. Which would suggest that murdering the queen wouldn't actually move us a whole lot forward economically.

[worm]

that's YOUR point.

Edited October 25, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

It's the point I've been making, certainly.]

ye - a point not related to anything I've said.

It's entirely about what you've said.

Then why are you talking the unrelated bollocks that you are?

And I and Coolphil have made the point that policies cannot be said to be ideologically led if other ideologies support them.

Oh, so to support your stupidity, you reckon that your idea having a greater number of the stupid makes you right?

I've already shown you how that statement of yours is bollocks, which you've not addressed at all, but instead you keep posting irrelevances that are nothing to do with what I've said.

Different reasons for doing something which results in the same outcome does not make those two things identical. The clue is in the word 'different'.

What you should be saying is that 'some government cutting is ideologically led'.

Why should I? That would be a false statement.

It's *ALL* ideologically led.

You being too stupid to recognise what is (a constant failing of yours) does not make that fail into something else.

[worm]

It's *ALL* ideologically led.

Edited October 25, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

At last, a discernable position. So you believe that all cuts are ideologically led.

My original position you moron.

[eFestivals]

In that case, as Coolphil said to you, you cannot say that you agree with some of the cuts and that you are opposed to all tory ideology, as the policy of scrapping ID cards has become part of that ideology.

If the cut is ideologically led and you agree with it then you agree with some tory ideology (the bit that says that runways are bad and that ID cards should be scrapped). You may disagree with other parts though, such as the plans relating to having that policy. But you could only agree with tory policy and disagree with all tory ideology if you believed that not all policy was ideologically led.

All very straight-forward logic Neil.

As already explained to you, agreeing with the consequence of a policy is not the same thing as agreeing with that policy or the ideology behind it.

Clearly all to clever for your very simple mind.

[worm]

As already explained to you, agreeing with the consequence of a policy is not the same thing as agreeing with that policy

[worm]

My original position you moron.

Edited October 26, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

The point is that you're both sharing the exact same policy.

no we're not. We're sharing the consequence of different policies.

The policy is to "I wish to do this for that reason". The reason is a part of any policy - after all, people do not implement any policy for no reason, do they?

Yes, you really are the world expert on language.

[eFestivals]

Not to me Chief.

That's obviously because you can't read, you can't understand simple words, and that you'll suck yourself up your own arse at every opportunity by talking complete bollocks as you have done yet again here, by starting an argument with me over something I've never said.

I've met woodlice with more intelligence than you.

[worm]

The policy is to "I wish to do this for that reason".

Edited October 26, 2010 by worm

[beLIEveR]

Not quite sure why today's GDP figures are being sold as a fantastic achievement.

It's clear that certain level of cuts, coupled with well targetted taxation, are necessary. Whether the sheer level of cuts (and relatively low proportion of tax) we're going to get is necessary is another matter. Nonetheless, this drop of a third of the growth came when virtually nothing bad had actually happened.

I don't want to make this into a political argument. Maybe Labour overcooked the response to the financial crisis, and were setting us up for a Greece in a few years time. Maybe the coalition are exaggerating the problem. Either way, if growth is shrinking rapidly already, I think it's a question of when the recession will come over the next 2-3 years and how bad it'll be, not whether there'll be one.

[eFestivals]

No it isn't. The policy is to scrap the ID card. The ideology is to do it for a particular reason.

You're saying that all policy (though I think you mean reasoning) is ideological and that any policy the tories have is to do with tory ideology. Therefore, you agreeing with their policy makes you in agreement with some of their ideology.

It's your logical position that's f**ked Neil.

What did I say, moron?

I said.....

The policy is to "I wish to do this for that reason". The reason is a part of any policy - after all, people do not implement any policy for no reason, do they?

So please show me a policy that exists for no reason, and then we can all agree that you're 100% right.

Any policy exists for a reason. The policies of the current tories exist as they do for tory ideological reasons.

As you're a moron that has trouble understanding simple words, I'll make clear (again ) that their policies are not necessarily their full ideological choice, because factored into what they are able to roll out in reality rather than their dreams is limited to some extent by the coalition agreement and political reality.

But the fact of their ideology leading their policies was VERY clearly displayed last Wednesday when most troy MPs CHEERED the cuts which will have huge impact on millions of people's lives.

Putting people into hardship might be the practical decisions that need to be made, but celebrating that fact takes a special type of c**t, and only those c**ts who adhere to a particular ideology.

Edited October 26, 2010 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Nonetheless, this drop of a third of the growth came when virtually nothing bad had actually happened.

and, it should be pointed out, in the months that are traditionally the most productive.

As you recognise, things can only get worse.

[worm]

What did I say?

Edited October 26, 2010 by worm

[eFestivals]

You said that the policy is ideologically led; that it is bound to its reasoning.

exactly. And I don't follow their policies.

But as I'm pointing out, you could only then follow a policy if you followed its ideological reasoning.

I understand that you're saying that you don't agree with the reasoning of the tory policy to scrap ID cards, but that means that you cannot say that the policy of scrapping ID cards is ideological (i.e. is not tory)because you (a non tory) have the same policy, thereby showing that the policy is not ideologically bound.

Again, it's your logical position that's f**ked.

What do you say in the first part?

"it is bound to its reasoning". And for once, you're right.

So therefore I have a different policy, because it has different reasoning. There, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

The tories don't have JUST a policy of scrapping ID cards - they have a policy of scrapping ID cards because of X, Y & Z.

Meanwhile, I have a policy of scrapping ID cards because of A, B & C.

They are not the same policy - the difference in policy is clear for everyone to see.

The ONLY place they meet and become the same is with EFFECT, and NOT policy. The effect happens for very different reasons, from very different policies.

Edited October 26, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

So therefore I have a different policy, because it has different reasoning.

Edited October 26, 2010 by worm