|
The Politics Thread
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:26
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
like we subsidise farmers and pretty much every rich country subsidises their own industries so they can compete against cheaper prices of weaker countries and drive their prices down
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 22:45
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:42
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Lets address these issues:
1. Our primary and secondary industries were already failing when Thatcher took power. The rise of China and other Newly Industrialised countries means we could no longer compete globally. Blame globalisation for that.
2. The farming subsidy is an EU operation, which eats up 50% of the EU budget.
3. Thatcher may have ruined some things on the way, but the fact she broke the trade unions was only a good thing. The trade unions were encouraging a lack of productivity (how well people worked), higher wages etc, which all contribute to a lack of competitiveness internationally. Now which is better: a very, large, expensive subsidy to keep inefficient firms in business, or to force them to be competitive and efficient or go under
3. Our financial sector is one of the strongest in the world. London is the (or one of the) world capital of finance. We are better off with this than our older industry.
So no, Thatcher wasn't a bad thing for the economy. She was a good thing.
As for ruining the lives of the trade unions she broke, that's a bit of an overstatement, but I would agree with you 
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:50
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
she ruined society - during her time unemployment rose, public transport deteriorated, and thousands of council homes were sold off which caused part of the housing shortage we have now. she encouraged greed, increased the break-up of families, she ostracized single mothers and doubled crime. public services and schools were all gravely under-funded, something labour have had to solve. she supported capital punishment and alienated gays.
she went into politics for entirely her own interests
Edited by wackojackohighcliffe on 20-10-2008 20:11
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 20-10-2008 19:58
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
she ruined society - during her time unemployment rose, public transport deteriorated, and thousands of council homes were sold off which caused part of the housing shortage we have now. she encouraged greed
If she ruined society so much, why did we re-elect her twice?
|
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 20-10-2008 20:15
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
because labour was on its knees, divided and unsure what to do, and because patriotic britons were inspired by victory in the pointless and tremendously wasteful falklands war
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 20-10-2008 20:24
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
And I totally agree with you on that point
|
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 20-10-2008 23:55
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Gays were prety alienated already, She never put anyone on capital punishment while prime minister. Again she was massively succesful at first but in the last 2 years her government fell apart.
Also there isn't a soingle politician who enters politics against there own interests |
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 21-10-2008 00:24
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Palin just lost the election for McCain(IMO) by saying she supports a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage.
There is no way this could possibly help the McCain campaign as those who would like to see a ban are already planning to vote for McCain and those true conservatives out there (though they are few) will not like this infringement on states rights. McCain has supported states rights on this issue. Though an ammendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman will never pass (A super-majority vote in favor in both houses of congress and 75% support from states legislator is needed) this was a really stupid move on Palin's part.
|
| |
|
|
| trueatfirstlight |
Posted on 21-10-2008 02:20
|
Free Agent
Posts: 121
Joined: 20-07-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, I'm not even going to remotely try and defend the McCain-Palin campaign, but look at it strategically. The paramount reason for Sarah Palin being on the ticket is to appeal to the right-wing, Christian conservative bible-belt demographic of middle America = red states. When you are dealing with FPTP electoral systems, you generally deal with party centrism, due to the simple fact that both parties attempt to increase their appeal toward other constituencies since they are essentially vying for the same bloc of voters. The very same phenomenon occurred in the UK with Blair's New Labour party, which attempted to (successfully) appeal toward middle-class conservatives. It's not surprising; it's just simple political pandering.
Everybody has said that choosing Palin for his running mate was McCain's biggest mistake, but in reality, he needed a running mate like her in order to help him gain some support back from his own party.
I agree that it's a very naive public comment to make coming from someone in her position, and one that may come back to bite her before 2 November, but I realistically cannot see the McCain-Palin ticket drumming up much support from libertarians or the pro-choice crowd anyway.  A constitutional amendment like that would never make it past congressional proposition.
And as far as "true conservatism" goes, remember that our country has not known nor has ever been guided by the tenets of true Burkean conservatism. Nowadays, that term is just as ambiguous as "liberal," and often take on very different meanings with very different connotations depending on which country's policy/political system you are referring to.
Anyway, I hate talking about US politics. Let's discuss why the UK rebate sucks.  |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 27-10-2008 20:31
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
News are coming in that an attack on Obama has been averted.
It's FOX News, though, so you never know. |
| |
|
|
| trueatfirstlight |
Posted on 28-10-2008 19:02
|
Free Agent
Posts: 121
Joined: 20-07-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
News are coming in that an attack on Obama has been averted.
It's FOX News, though, so you never know.
Unfortunately, this is true. Not much is being reported on it yet.
https://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5js...AD9435AK80
On an only slightly lighter note, these guys must have been some of the dumbest potential "assassins" ever. Checklist:
-Burglarize houses to fund rampage. Nope. Foiled by parked cars and barking dog. gg.
-Purchase rope and ski masks at Wal-Mart. Check.
-Steal handguns from parents. Check.
-Brag openly about intentions and swagger. Check.
-Scrawl swastikas on the same car they would use to roll through the country while engaging in hate crimes. Double-check.
-Shoot window out of predominantly African-American church. Check, check and check.
-Rent white tuxedos and top hats to accentuate racial purity (an inference).
-Kill 88 black people (probably not the phraseology used). One eight for each “H†in Heil Hitler.
-Behead 14 for the 14-word white supremacist mantra.
-Shoot at Sen. Obama drive-by-style.
Really really? Just.. wow. |
| |
|
|
| matt493 |
Posted on 28-10-2008 19:16
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3549
Joined: 01-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
This is what I have to say.
Abraham Lincoln - Freed slaves assassinated
JFK - fought segregation assassinated
Obama is a better man then me for trying to become the President. The worst thing for USA right now would be to murder him. Now there is still tensions between african americans and white people so an assassination would be terrible. This was a low risk low chance of succeeding. Soon they will develop and that is not a good thing. This is one time where I'm not proud to be an American.
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 29-10-2008 08:10
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
So, guys. Does anyone know how much "Joe the Plumber" has been paid by McCain?
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 29-10-2008 08:41
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
According to wikipedia, he's actually Joe the "Assistant to plumbing contractor"
So, did McCain pay "Joe the Assistant to Plumbing Contractor"?  |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 29-10-2008 10:44
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
... whos name isn't really Joe, but Samuel. |
| |
|
|
| diouf |
Posted on 29-10-2008 15:36
|
Under 23
Posts: 62
Joined: 03-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I dont mind yo guys bashing for peoples politics, but please check your facts when making fun, even though it it not a very important thing, if you doesn't then it will be just....... not fun . His name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. Could it in any way be possible that Joe was short for Joseph?
and if you checked wikipedia you will find this: Wurzelbacher actually does not need a plumbing license because he works for a plumbing corporation, which holds responsibility for licensing issues. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 29-10-2008 15:53
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
diouf wrote:
I dont mind yo guys bashing for peoples politics, but please check your facts when making fun, even though it it not a very important thing, if you doesn't then it will be just....... not fun . His name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. Could it in any way be possible that Joe was short for Joseph?
and if you checked wikipedia you will find this: Wurzelbacher actually does not need a plumbing license because he works for a plumbing corporation, which holds responsibility for licensing issues.
relax
the "" means I'm joking. Nobody would be stupid enough to actually raise a fuss around "He's not really a plumber, just a semi-plumber" or whatever |
| |
|
|
| diouf |
Posted on 29-10-2008 16:02
|
Under 23
Posts: 62
Joined: 03-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
diouf wrote:
I dont mind yo guys bashing for peoples politics, but please check your facts when making fun, even though it it not a very important thing, if you doesn't then it will be just....... not fun . His name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. Could it in any way be possible that Joe was short for Joseph?
and if you checked wikipedia you will find this: Wurzelbacher actually does not need a plumbing license because he works for a plumbing corporation, which holds responsibility for licensing issues.
relax
the " " means I'm joking. Nobody would be stupid enough to actually raise a fuss around "He's not really a plumber, just a semi-plumber" or whatever
i couldnt be more relaxed.
just think it's kinda strange comment, who ws neither funny or constructive, but maybe that's just me |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 29-10-2008 16:06
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
My point with the original comment is that the whole situation is completely ridiculous, that's all |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 29-10-2008 16:08
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I agree with isso. I was fully aware of the fact that his middle name is Joe (or Joseph). But that doesn't make the whole Joe the Plumber story less funny. |
| |
|
