Meister Jag Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Good luck with your invasion of Cowdenbeath. I was in deepest Red Fife (Kelty) the other day climbing Benarty Hill and Drumglow Hill and the locals mainly looked ok to me. Loch Glow was lined with bins full of empty lager tins from the fishermen which maybe hints at some underlying social problems. Not sure they are ready for revolution though. Anyway, don't know what I'm on about either really The mighty Loch Glow - home of, if memory serves, the Civil Service Angling Club (Rosyth and District); which might explain the empties! I think the CS open it up to clubs to have the odd outing at reasonable cost; the reason why I've been a few times. As a spot, I've generally caught well on the fly; but it can be windy as feck. I once had the pleasure of watching an Osprey catch about 100-yards away fro where I was wading. Nice fish taken in one swoop. (I'd been freezing my knackers off waist deep in a gale for a few hours!) Such is the plight of the lonely angler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 The mighty Loch Glow - home of, if memory serves, the Civil Service Angling Club (Rosyth and District); which might explain the empties! I think the CS open it up to clubs to have the odd outing at reasonable cost; the reason why I've been a few times. As a spot, I've generally caught well on the fly; but it can be windy as feck. I once had the pleasure of watching an Osprey catch about 100-yards away fro where I was wading. Nice fish taken in one swoop. (I'd been freezing my knackers off waist deep in a gale for a few hours!) Such is the plight of the lonely angler. MJ out and about 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 but actually give us the power we need unlike wind farms which have to many variables Do the SNP government know that there's a lot of hot air generated in Penicuik? You could be the saviour of our nation, a national treasure. Just like the Krankies. Just feed him a few Daily Mail stories and whoooof, there he blows! It is said that his bluster could heat a small town. How ironic, Jaggy the man of Empire returns home to save Caledonia. History will credit you with the new Enlightenment. P.S. WTF has this got to do with the late Hilda? Some true headlines: "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher, 1988 "There is no such thing as Margaret Thatcher" - Society, 2013 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Do the SNP government know that there's a lot of hot air generated in Penicuik? You could be the saviour of our nation, a national treasure. Just like the Krankies. Just feed him a few Daily Mail stories and whoooof, there he blows! It is said that his bluster could heat a small town. How ironic, Jaggy the man of Empire returns home to save Caledonia. History will credit you with the new Enlightenment. P.S. WTF has this got to do with the late Hilda? Some true headlines: "There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher, 1988 "There is no such thing as Margaret Thatcher" - Society, 2013 so are you saying i am wrong or is this just your usual stuff when you know you are wrong oh and the full quote is Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987 "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." cant see much wrong with that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Incognito Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 but actually give us the power we need unlike wind farms which have to many variables Yeah, some days they turn clockwise other days they turn anticlockwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) so are you saying i am wrong or is this just your usual stuff when you know you are wrong oh and the full quote is Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987 "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." cant see much wrong with that At least we've steered this back onto Thatcher so well done Jaggy. I actually can't believe that you keep back issues of Women's Own, but nothing surprises me about you. Bet that copy is well thumbed, I mean Thatcher at her poisonous best... Reminds me why you keep laminated pictures of her. A wee thought: What if the State has caused the problems in the first place? (I'm talking all shades of the Westmisnter spectrum.) The electorate puts trust in the government to act in the best interests of the people, but if they don't deliver, what happens? No come back and the we all remain as miserable as a Fifer with piles. I've actually read Thatcher's comments before; this is the usual uncaring Tory bollocks that some folk get off on. Cameron is currently waffling on about "those who work hard, pay taxes" etc. (He should tell his mates as a few of them are failing to pay some £120m in taxes!) It's all the fault of the poor, the work-shy and the sick etc. But what if it was never a level playing field and what if we really live in a closed them and us society? Do you not think that some folk would look to change the system or at best be given a chance to find a job? But in general terms, even dear old Marx identified that there was a class that didn't wish to engage in society. At risk of raising your BP (always the objective of my posts), I actually have sympathy for those that Thatcher refers to in your magazine. They may have been let down by society. They are the victims. I don't believe that they're all wasters. To be honest, she was quite good at looking after her own sorts and leaving those without to rot. So it will come as no surprise where my sympathies lie. I know, you love me... Edited May 9, 2013 by Meister Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Yeah, some days they turn clockwise other days they turn anticlockwise. and somedays they just don't work at all. you been taking lessons from MJ on non answers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Yeah, some days they turn clockwise other days they turn anticlockwise. Are we stil talking about the liberals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 and somedays they just don't work at all. you been taking lessons from MJ on non answers Read it and weep comrade! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 At least we've steered this back onto Thatcher so well done Jaggy. I actually can't believe that you keep back issues of Women's Own, but nothing surprises me about you. Bet that copy is well thumbed, I mean Thatcher at her poisonous best... Reminds me why you keep laminated pictures of her. A wee thought: What if the State has caused the problems in the first place? (I'm talking all shades of the Westmisnter spectrum.) The electorate puts trust in the government to act in the best interests of the people, but if they don't deliver, what happens? No come back and the we all remain as miserable as a Fifer with piles. I've actually read Thatcher's comments before; this is the usual uncaring Tory bollocks that some folk get off on. Cameron is currently waffling on about "those who work hard, pay taxes" etc. (He should tell his mates as a few of them are failing to pay some £120m in taxes!) It's all the fault of the poor, the work-shy and the sick etc. But what if it was never a level playing field and what if we really live in a closed them and us society? Do you not think that some folk would look to change the system or at best be given a chance to find a job? But in general terms, even dear old Marx identified that there was a class that didn't wish to engage in society. At risk of raising your BP (always the objective of my posts), I actually have sympathy for those that Thatcher refers to in your magazine. They may have been let down by society. They are the victims. I don't believe that they're all wasters. To be honest, she was quite good at looking after her own sorts and leaving those without to rot. So it will come as no surprise where my sympathies lie. I know, you love me... did you actually read it before posting that? she was saying that people should try to help them selves before expecting others to do so, that is what we should all do its called being responsible for our own actions. i forgot that the socialist way is to give give give with no thought to real life and i love you to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) did you actually read it before posting that? she was saying that people should try to help them selves before expecting others to do so, that is what we should all do its called being responsible for our own actions. i forgot that the socialist way is to give give give with no thought to real life and i love you to Of course I read it, but I only provide answers from my perspective. I like my posts to be petty and ill-informed. This is what I do best. Spouting good old left-wing rhetoric. You love it, I know you do... Conservatives are class traitors so must never be trusted. Why can you be bothered defending what you know to be wrong? Put simply, conservatives of any type hate any government's attempts at the redistribution of wealth or any interference in the economy by regulation. They view welfare entitlements as enabling individuals to shirk responsibility for their own lives so hate anyone relying on the government to take care of them. They reason, wrongly IMO, that the more the government takes responsibility for personal well being away from the individual, the weaker and more dependent society will become. So harsh, so neo-con. In your world, only the strong will survive and flourish; and if government has stolen your job, your pride and hope then you've got to dust yourself down and get on with it. What utter tosh; this is why people have revolutions! You know it doesn't have to be this way. Peace and love brother, x Edited May 9, 2013 by Meister Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Incognito Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 and somedays they just don't work at all. you been taking lessons from MJ on non answers Actually, I have been taking lessons from you on smart-arsed ones. I thought you might have quite appreciated that last one. I am anything but an expert on renewable energy generation, but it was my understanding that it is possible to store any excess power for future use when required. I could be havering though. For what it's worth, I don't think that fossil fuels are completely redundant. If only we could find a deceased auld creature from somewhere to burn. Are we stil talking about the liberals? No, they just spin in circles. Perpetually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Of course I read it, but I only provide answers from my perspective. I like my posts to be petty and ill-informed. This is what I do best. Spouting good old left-wing rhetoric. You love it, I know you do... Conservatives are class traitors so must never be trusted. Why can you be bothered defending what you know to be wrong? Put simply, conservatives of any type hate any government's attempts at the redistribution of wealth or any interference in the economy by regulation. They view welfare entitlements as enabling individuals to shirk responsibility for their own lives so hate anyone relying on the government to take care of them. They reason, wrongly IMO, that the more the government takes responsibility for personal well being away from the individual, the weaker and more dependent society will become. So harsh, so neo-con. In your world, only the strong will survive and flourish; and if government has stolen your job, your pride and hope then you've got to dust yourself down and get on with it. What utter tosh; this is why people have revolutions! You know it doesn't have to be this way. Peace and love brother, x Your post is riddled with basic factual and political errors. On the regulation point, you are confusing conservatism with classical liberalism. Before Thatcher, the Conservatives were very interventionist, especially under MacMillan and Heath. Heath even nationalised Rolls Royce. Neo-conservatives in the US (e.g. Irving and Bill Kristols) are pro-welfare and pro-immigration. Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of the neo-cons, was originally a Trotskyite. Several leading neo-cons were active in the Democratic Party, e.g. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle and Douglas Feith who worked for Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson before defecting to the Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) Your post is riddled with basic factual and political errors. On the regulation point, you are confusing conservatism with classical liberalism. Before Thatcher, the Conservatives were very interventionist, especially under MacMillan and Heath. Heath even nationalised Rolls Royce. Neo-conservatives in the US (e.g. Irving and Bill Kristols) are pro-welfare and pro-immigration. Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of the neo-cons, was originally a Trotskyite. Several leading neo-cons were active in the Democratic Party, e.g. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle and Douglas Feith who worked for Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson before defecting to the Republicans. it is MJ you are talking about Edited May 10, 2013 by jaggybunnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 so are you saying i am wrong or is this just your usual stuff when you know you are wrong oh and the full quote is Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987 "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." cant see much wrong with that It's a politicians speech, designed to sound like it means what you'd like it to mean but contains the seed of something nasty like most politicians speech and the nasty bit is if you're in trouble and there's no one there to help - friends or family, or even if they are therehey can't help that much - then tough luck you can F*&k off. To quote the bit in the bible when asked how we know people are true christians - "by their deeds you shall know them". Or in a more commonplace phrase, actions speak louder than words. Thatcher's period saw huge increases of homeless youngsters and street begging. People were allowed to buy council houses (at ridiculoulsy cheap rates in many cases) while the councils were forbidden to use that money to build new or improve old council houses for those that needed them. Thatcherite parties of new Labour and Tories/LDems and look where they got us. We don't live in wee villages where everyone looks after and can look after their families/mates. We live in complicated socieites, big cities where communities have been broken up - we need the social help that's available and there are ordinary working people who would be living on the poverty line without state aid - many of the businessmen who complain about scroungers would shout louder if they had to pay these folk a decent wage. State aid is the equivalent of us saying "we do live in a society". one where we give a damn about other people (unlike our politicians) - and for all the stories about scroungers, there are far more people that really need help, and 1,000s times more money scammed from us by banksters and financiers (and MPs) than by them yet what gets the most media attention? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) It's a politicians speech, designed to sound like it means what you'd like it to mean but contains the seed of something nasty like most politicians speech and the nasty bit is if you're in trouble and there's no one there to help - friends or family, or even if they are therehey can't help that much - then tough luck you can F*&k off. only says that in your head To quote the bit in the bible when asked how we know people are true christians - "by their deeds you shall know them". Or in a more commonplace phrase, actions speak louder than words. Thatcher's period saw huge increases of homeless youngsters and street begging. People were allowed to buy council houses (at ridiculoulsy cheap rates in many cases) while the councils were forbidden to use that money to build new or improve old council houses for those that needed them. Thatcherite parties of new Labour and Tories/LDems and look where they got us. they were not "forbidden" to do this they were told to reduce there debits first which were massive and then spend up to 25% on rebuilding. yes it wasn't perfect and yes people took advantage it (buy to let companies) We don't live in wee villages where everyone looks after and can look after their families/mates. We live in complicated socieites, big cities where communities have been broken up - we need the social help that's available and there are ordinary working people who would be living on the poverty line without state aid - many of the businessmen who complain about scroungers would shout louder if they had to pay these folk a decent wage. Does not take a way from the fact that those that can help themselves should, instead of in some cases just thinking what am i entitled to. oh and this was happing under the labour of old before this in the 70s maggie just pushed it on State aid is the equivalent of us saying "we do live in a society". one where we give a damn about other people (unlike our politicians) - and for all the stories about scroungers, there are far more people that really need help, and 1,000s times more money scammed from us by banksters and financiers (and MPs) than by them yet what gets the most media attention? Edited May 10, 2013 by jaggybunnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) Your post is riddled with basic factual and political errors. On the regulation point, you are confusing conservatism with classical liberalism. Before Thatcher, the Conservatives were very interventionist, especially under MacMillan and Heath. Heath even nationalised Rolls Royce. Neo-conservatives in the US (e.g. Irving and Bill Kristols) are pro-welfare and pro-immigration. Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of the neo-cons, was originally a Trotskyite. Several leading neo-cons were active in the Democratic Party, e.g. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle and Douglas Feith who worked for Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson before defecting to the Republicans. its that rather uneasy conjunction between neoliberal and neo-conservative taht makes 'new right' iirc... which i think often makes people use those terms interchangably when they are not. You can also see where those alliances throw up problems, for instance, the disconnect between david camerons libertarian policy on gay marraige with his back benchers being promoters of traditional values. Edited May 10, 2013 by mrD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) Your post is riddled with basic factual and political errors. On the regulation point, you are confusing conservatism with classical liberalism. Before Thatcher, the Conservatives were very interventionist, especially under MacMillan and Heath. Heath even nationalised Rolls Royce. Neo-conservatives in the US (e.g. Irving and Bill Kristols) are pro-welfare and pro-immigration. Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of the neo-cons, was originally a Trotskyite. Several leading neo-cons were active in the Democratic Party, e.g. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle and Douglas Feith who worked for Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson before defecting to the Republicans. Apologies, I've stayed away from the forum for the past few days. I've re-read my post and still believe what I've said is factually correct. I was referring to what Thatcher and her cronies delivered and to their legacy. So Heath nationalised a famous old British firm. Why? Look at what a later Tory governments allowed to happen; aided by their New Labour chums. Is this firm still in state hands and producing for the good of the nation? Erm, no, not even owned by a British holding company. It's too easy and politically naive to pick out good things delivered by any political party e.g. didn't Thatcher introduce Disability Living Allowance and an earlier Liberal government kick-start the Welfare State (Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906). But upon analysis, we weren't exactly groundbreakers as the Germans beat us to the notion of a welfare state. Good old Bismarck started paying state pensions back in the 1800s. But the real point is that politics is littered with those who've introduced one or two good ideas or even changed sides; and often for good reason. Doesn't make them great leaders, great politicians or even half-decent people. It's too easy to name (and shame?) all the neo-cons, so why not mention the likes of Wurmser and Abrams? One was accused of being a spy the other was heavily involved in Iran-Contra scandal. Between them they helped give us the clique that sold us the Iraq war. More names to add to your list of shame. All very libertarian and always acting in the best interest of the average citizen. Come on... But maybe you like the folk you've named for what they've achieved by way of lasting change. However, the fact is that these guys were instrumental in shaping their vision of a new world order. I mean, what's a war amongst friends if a few million (billion?) dollars can be made in profit. The fact is that successive British governments have been happy to jump on board the neo-con de-regulation steamroller; with the purpose being to minimise state involvement and control and in so doing allowing profit to be maximised. After all, capital drives the aforementioned individuals and isn't money behind their think tanks e.g. the wonderfully named Project for a New American Century. But you'll probably disagree and think that they're trying to emancipate mankind from the constraints of socialism. In fairness and this is where I'll meet you half way, the relative coherence of neo-conservatism as an ideology and a strategy has led some on the left to become pessimistic about the possibilities for opposing it. But this is a mistake. A full analysis of the weaknesses of the neo-cons is probably beyond the scope of this post as I'd have Jaggy and others reporting me. However, one easy point can be made - neo-cons systematically try to dismantle many of the structures that limit and regulate the operation of the market, both with regard to relationships between capital and labour and with regard to relationships between different capitalist enterprises. As such they cannot but increase the potential instability in the economic system. Weren't many of these limits originally put in place and designed to restrain such instability? But the good news is that as the squeeze comes due to austerity measures, the conditions required to secure a permanent change in society become more apparent. One day the workers of the world will call a halt to this madness. I always like to end on a note of optimism. Edited May 11, 2013 by Meister Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 Not like you to provide a political analysis Jaggy, some of it confirms that you're beginning to move to the left. Re-read your post and then think Tony Benn. You remain a work-in-progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 Apologies, I've stayed away from the forum for the past few days. I've re-read my post and still believe what I've said is factually correct. I was referring to what Thatcher and her cronies delivered and to their legacy. So Heath nationalised a famous old British firm. Why? Look at what a later Tory governments allowed to happen; aided by their New Labour chums. Is this firm still in state hands and producing for the good of the nation? Erm, no, not even owned by a British holding company. It's too easy and politically naive to pick out good things delivered by any political party e.g. didn't Thatcher introduce Disability Living Allowance and an earlier Liberal government kick-start the Welfare State (Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906). But upon analysis, we weren't exactly groundbreakers as the Germans beat us to the notion of a welfare state. Good old Bismarck started paying state pensions back in the 1800s. But the real point is that politics is littered with those who've introduced one or two good ideas or even changed sides; and often for good reason. Doesn't make them great leaders, great politicians or even half-decent people. It's too easy to name (and shame?) all the neo-cons, so why not mention the likes of Wurmser and Abrams? One was accused of being a spy the other was heavily involved in Iran-Contra scandal. Between them they helped give us the clique that sold us the Iraq war. More names to add to your list of shame. All very libertarian and always acting in the best interest of the average citizen. Come on... But maybe you like the folk you've named for what they've achieved by way of lasting change. However, the fact is that these guys were instrumental in shaping their vision of a new world order. I mean, what's a war amongst friends if a few million (billion?) dollars can be made in profit. The fact is that successive British governments have been happy to jump on board the neo-con de-regulation steamroller; with the purpose being to minimise state involvement and control and in so doing allowing profit to be maximised. After all, capital drives the aforementioned individuals and isn't money behind their think tanks e.g. the wonderfully named Project for a New American Century. But you'll probably disagree and think that they're trying to emancipate mankind from the constraints of socialism. In fairness and this is where I'll meet you half way, the relative coherence of neo-conservatism as an ideology and a strategy has led some on the left to become pessimistic about the possibilities for opposing it. But this is a mistake. A full analysis of the weaknesses of the neo-cons is probably beyond the scope of this post as I'd have Jaggy and others reporting me. However, one easy point can be made - neo-cons systematically try to dismantle many of the structures that limit and regulate the operation of the market, both with regard to relationships between capital and labour and with regard to relationships between different capitalist enterprises. As such they cannot but increase the potential instability in the economic system. Weren't many of these limits originally put in place and designed to restrain such instability? But the good news is that as the squeeze comes due to austerity measures, the conditions required to secure a permanent change in society become more apparent. One day the workers of the world will call a halt to this madness. I always like to end on a note of optimism. I think that you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I oppose the neo-cons and everything they stand for. They are not, however, laissez faire capitalists who promote or advocate the deregulation of markets. The neo-cons are interventionists, both economically and politically, especially on foreign policy. The main objective of the neo-cons is secure political and financial support for Israel. Anyone who opposes them (especially traditional or paleo-conservatives such as Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul) is smeared as anti-semitic. The British neo-con "think tank" (sic) is the Henry Jackson Society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted May 12, 2013 Report Share Posted May 12, 2013 I think that you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I oppose the neo-cons and everything they stand for. They are not, however, laissez faire capitalists who promote or advocate the deregulation of markets. The neo-cons are interventionists, both economically and politically, especially on foreign policy. The main objective of the neo-cons is secure political and financial support for Israel. Anyone who opposes them (especially traditional or paleo-conservatives such as Russell Kirk, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul) is smeared as anti-semitic. The British neo-con "think tank" (sic) is the Henry Jackson Society. No worries KNI and apologies if I went off on one. I usually save that for the Penicuik Commie wannabe! I take your point regarding the neo-con interventionist approach but still make the point (reasonably) that money lies at the heart of all that they do. IMO, their god is Mammon. I could go on about the role of Israel in global capitalism but will leave that for another day. On this one we'd probably agree with each other. But enough from me... Cheers MJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kni Posted May 14, 2013 Report Share Posted May 14, 2013 No worries KNI and apologies if I went off on one. I usually save that for the Penicuik Commie wannabe! I take your point regarding the neo-con interventionist approach but still make the point (reasonably) that money lies at the heart of all that they do. IMO, their god is Mammon. I could go on about the role of Israel in global capitalism but will leave that for another day. On this one we'd probably agree with each other. But enough from me... Cheers MJ No apologies are necessary. Neo-cons are, in general, focused on foreign policy. Global capitalism is their means to financing their war against Israel's enemies - as they perceive them. The US continues to send billions in aid to Israel. My personal view is that Israel should be free to defend itself but that the West should not intervene, e.g. in Syria where the opposition is Al Quaeda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Quinn Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 why don't we just agree, socialism doesn't work. It's a nice idea, but you can't help all the people all the time, people have to help themselves. socialism encourages people to be lazy, work shy, and it also robs people of their self worth. too many people went on the sick when labour was on power. junkies and alchys gettin away wae it. the tories or ukip wid gie them a kick up the arse. u lovey dovey fairy boys have to get back in the real world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted May 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 why don't we just agree, socialism doesn't work. It's a nice idea, but you can't help all the people all the time, people have to help themselves. socialism encourages people to be lazy, work shy, and it also robs people of their self worth. too many people went on the sick when labour was on power. junkies and alchys gettin away wae it. the tories or ukip wid gie them a kick up the arse. u lovey dovey fairy boys have to get back in the real world In one way you're a raving "capitalist", yet in another way a definite "anti-capitalist". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Quinn Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) In one way you're a raving "capitalist", yet in another way a definite "anti-capitalist". how am i anti capitalist, amuse me Edited May 15, 2013 by The Mighty Quinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.