Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ugo.santalucia

bompington wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Fcuk them and fcuk all those who think nukes are a good thing or a necessary thing in this time and age... they are not, you moron

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If you have ran out of stupid things to say, the bottom bracket is only one line down... I'd press on if I were you

The problem is that you never have anything to say... you hide behind a snappy one liner, but you don't actually say anything.

Why don't explain why you think Corbyn is not moderate and the opposition is, so maybe we can get a glimpse of what goes on in your head

pinno

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bompington wrote:

It's nice to see moderate opinions so reasonably and logically stated.

If you have ran out of stupid things to say, the bottom bracket is only one line down... I'd press on if I were you

Personally, I think the level of conversation in BB is slightly better than this particular bout of handbag swinging.
At least there is honesty in BB, even though it might be a little brutal at times.

Back OT - Nukes: F*cking waste of time and money and as a yardstick of the evolution of humanity...

Modern warfare is terrorism. Some guy who's strapped a bomb to his waste. Modern warfare is also Cyber attacks, the continued conversion of economies to Capitalism and the materialism that is inherent in that. It's also about climate change and the threat it poses. There's lots to worry about other than nukes.
Do not ever forget that the only country to ever use nukes also used a people as human Guinea pigs in Bikini atoll and the nuclear tests are still having an effect on that populace as well as the environment. One of the most insidious acts of the 20th century.
Look at the proliferation of US bases in the Pacific rim - all pointing at China. Oh and 'The Iranians are the bad guys in their axis of evil'. Yeah right.

(and we're in cahoots with them in this so called 'special relationship! I hope Trump inadvertently blows that out of the water). Culturally and socially, we are far closer to the Europeans than the yanks and it is about time we realised that instead of looking up and over the pond to the all consuming Americans with very little regard to depleting resources and now, shifting away from adhering to the Paris agreement.

Bompington is hiding behind the religious missions he goes on: To parts of Africa and it is probably linked to the latter day saints or some similar ilk. So, on quick analysis: The old world (middle east and general 'evil') vs the New world (The God fearing, good Christians of the West - of course they should have the bomb, it's within their God given right. They are the self assigned chosen one's. They can counter evil and with the bomb they are protected from it under the umbrella of a nuclear arsenal, beautifully spread globally by submarines).

It is clear that a lot of Tories are paranoid. They fear having to change their lifestyle's if a real socialist government got in. Of having to actually deal with social problems and inequality. The poor are poor because of their own decisions. The sick are sick because they don't look after themselves and all that bollox rhetoric that spews out of the right wing press.
Damn those who are leeches on the system - reduce their benefits and sanction them if they mis-behave.
At the same time Cameron wanted to wipe £12bn off the Welfare bill, £42bn was lost per annum in tax avoidance and loopholes.

Ben6899

Stevo 666 wrote:

OK, I concede. The loony left did get one over us by losing the election. I guess it's all part of Corbyns plan to continue the grand tradition of leftie losers

Each day, your posts further resemble the school smart ar$e who no one really likes, if they're honest.

You're clearly far more clever and a nicer person than that. Reign it in a bit, mate.

ugo.santalucia

Pinno wrote:

It is clear that a lot of Tories are paranoid. They fear having to change their lifestyle's if a real socialist government got in. Of having to actually deal with social problems and inequality. The poor are poor because of their own decisions. The sick are sick because they don't look after themselves and all that bollox rhetoric that spews out of the right wing press.
Damn those who are leeches on the system - reduce their benefits and sanction them if they mis-behave.
At the same time Cameron wanted to wipe £12bn off the Welfare bill, £42bn was lost per annum in tax avoidance and loopholes.

You hit the nail on the head here. Among many Tories/Republicans there is this belief of a world of opportunities that anyone can access and if they don't, it's their problem... which is true of course if they look no further than their privileged upbringing.

Look at Zac Goldsmith: anyone in his position but without a wealthy backing would struggle to make ends meet... BUT he managed to do quite well for himself.

bompington

Pinno wrote:

Bompington is hiding behind the religious missions he goes on: To parts of Africa and it is probably linked to the latter day saints or some similar ilk. So, on quick analysis: The old world (middle east and general 'evil') vs the New world (The God fearing, good Christians of the West - of course they should have the bomb, it's within their God given right. They are the self assigned chosen one's. They can counter evil and with the bomb they are protected from it under the umbrella of a nuclear arsenal, beautifully spread globally by submarines).

1. I don't "go on religious missions". I think I have mentioned a couple of trips to Africa to visit friends, and one school trip.
2. LDS ? couldn't be more wrong
3. Your cod analysis of my motivation jumping to wild conclusions on no evidence whatsoever? Couldn't be more wrong. I subscribe to the view that nuclear weapons - yes, MAD- have helped to prevent catastrophic war for 70 years now, because there is plenty of evidence to support this. I certainly don't subscribe to any of the views you give to me in this paragraph.
4. General anti-american / anti-west rant? Well yes, the US government, like the UK, French, Chinese and every other bleeding government in the history of mankind, does what it thinks is right in its own eyes. That means that a lot of wrong things have been done by a lot of governments, and I'm not in the habit of defending them. But overall, are you trying to claim that western values - and capitalism - haven't been a force for good in the world since, let's say, the end of WW2? Because if so, you're going to have to say which countries - or philosophies or political systems - would have done better.

bianchimoon

Pinno wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bompington wrote:

It's nice to see moderate opinions so reasonably and logically stated.

If you have ran out of stupid things to say, the bottom bracket is only one line down... I'd press on if I were you

Personally, I think the level of conversation in BB is slightly better than this particular bout of handbag swinging.
At least there is honesty in BB, even though it might be a little brutal at times.

Back OT - Nukes: F*cking waste of time and money and as a yardstick of the evolution of humanity...

Modern warfare is terrorism. Some guy who's strapped a bomb to his waste. Modern warfare is also Cyber attacks, the continued conversion of economies to Capitalism and the materialism that is inherent in that. It's also about climate change and the threat it poses. There's lots to worry about other than nukes.
Do not ever forget that the only country to ever use nukes also used a people as human Guinea pigs in Bikini atoll and the nuclear tests are still having an effect on that populace as well as the environment. One of the most insidious acts of the 20th century.
Look at the proliferation of US bases in the Pacific rim - all pointing at China. Oh and 'The Iranians are the bad guys in their axis of evil'. Yeah right.

(and we're in cahoots with them in this so called 'special relationship! I hope Trump inadvertently blows that out of the water). Culturally and socially, we are far closer to the Europeans than the yanks and it is about time we realised that instead of looking up and over the pond to the all consuming Americans with very little regard to depleting resources and now, shifting away from adhering to the Paris agreement.

Bompington is hiding behind the religious missions he goes on: To parts of Africa and it is probably linked to the latter day saints or some similar ilk. So, on quick analysis: The old world (middle east and general 'evil') vs the New world (The God fearing, good Christians of the West - of course they should have the bomb, it's within their God given right. They are the self assigned chosen one's. They can counter evil and with the bomb they are protected from it under the umbrella of a nuclear arsenal, beautifully spread globally by submarines).

It is clear that a lot of Tories are paranoid. They fear having to change their lifestyle's if a real socialist government got in. Of having to actually deal with social problems and inequality. The poor are poor because of their own decisions. The sick are sick because they don't look after themselves and all that bollox rhetoric that spews out of the right wing press.
Damn those who are leeches on the system - reduce their benefits and sanction them if they mis-behave.
At the same time Cameron wanted to wipe £12bn off the Welfare bill, £42bn was lost per annum in tax avoidance and loopholes.

Couldn't agree more, very well said!

ugo.santalucia

bompington wrote:

But overall, are you trying to claim that western values - and capitalism - haven't been a force for good in the world since, let's say, the end of WW2? Because if so, you're going to have to say which countries - or philosophies or political systems - would have done better.

Patchy... I wouldn't say that Vietnam was something good, as well as the dozens of other wars the US have been involved since the end of WW2. They've been consistently on the wrong side of history since then. Of course the Russians have been doing their part too.
The effort in creating peace has been dwarved by the effort in creating wealth within their own borders.

Some good things... of course the Marshall plan was a very good thing, the creation of ECM and then EU was a very good thing to boost economies and prevent conflicts...

Overall, I don't feel western values have championed "the good" in the way they want us to believe...

bompington

Pinno wrote:

£42bn was lost per annum in tax avoidance and loopholes.

I can understand that politicians have to keep spouting nonsense to try and get people to vote for them.

But the myth that somehow there is a vast amount of tax just waiting to be claimed by the first government with the balls to do it - is simply a myth.

Time and again it has been demonstrated that reducing taxes increases government income. Time and again a new government claims that it is going to crack down on tax evasion only for it to turn out that the sums they were claiming were total hot air.

But people still go on believing the myth.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Looks like the loony left have got one over on you Bompy.
Maybe the right are a little tetchy and paranoid, Or have they always been like that?

What, like they 'got one over' by losing the general election?

The loony left's definition of success appears to be losing by less than expected. A great case of creating success by lowering expectations?

Cmon stevo, your better than this, above it all...have more lucid arguments etc,

OK, I concede. The loony left did get one over us by losing the election. I guess it's all part of Corbyns plan to continue the grand tradition of leftie losers

So i take it you think May and the Tories are in a stronger position than pre GE ? and that getting the DUP on board was part of Mays master plan to inc ALL regions in Gov policy lol!

No, they are not. But they still won the election, which is what counts.

Labour were not in power before the GE and they aren't in power after the GE. Just in case anyone wasn't clear on that point

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Looks like the loony left have got one over on you Bompy.
Maybe the right are a little tetchy and paranoid, Or have they always been like that?

What, like they 'got one over' by losing the general election?

The loony left's definition of success appears to be losing by less than expected. A great case of creating success by lowering expectations?

Cmon stevo, your better than this, above it all...have more lucid arguments etc,

OK, I concede. The loony left did get one over us by losing the election. I guess it's all part of Corbyns plan to continue the grand tradition of leftie losers

So i take it you think May and the Tories are in a stronger position than pre GE ? and that getting the DUP on board was part of Mays master plan to inc ALL regions in Gov policy lol!

No, they are not. But they still won the election, which is what counts.

Labour were not in power before the GE and they aren't in power after the GE. Just in case anyone wasn't clear on that point

Give it 5 months...
When May could have had 3 years.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Looks like the loony left have got one over on you Bompy.
Maybe the right are a little tetchy and paranoid, Or have they always been like that?

What, like they 'got one over' by losing the general election?

The loony left's definition of success appears to be losing by less than expected. A great case of creating success by lowering expectations?

Cmon stevo, your better than this, above it all...have more lucid arguments etc,

OK, I concede. The loony left did get one over us by losing the election. I guess it's all part of Corbyns plan to continue the grand tradition of leftie losers

So i take it you think May and the Tories are in a stronger position than pre GE ? and that getting the DUP on board was part of Mays master plan to inc ALL regions in Gov policy lol!

No, they are not. But they still won the election, which is what counts.

Labour were not in power before the GE and they aren't in power after the GE. Just in case anyone wasn't clear on that point

Labour lost, no doubt about that, but most would consider winning an election to include having a majority to be able to pass the Queen's speech. If that doesn't pass or the DUP deal fails then either there will be another election very soon or Corbyn as the leader of the next largest party could be invited to form a government. That would probably collapse as well leading to another election.

Most seats, yes; won the election? There would be no need for the DUP deal if they had.

veronese68

Stevo 666 wrote:

No, they are not. But they still won the election, which is what counts.

They won the election, yes without a shadow of doubt. They won the election they said they wouldn't have. They won the election they called in order to increase their majority to give them a stronger mandate. They won the election but no longer have a majority. They won the election but have now had to enter into a 'coalition of chaos' with former terrorists.
Lots of winning going on there, they must be absolutely cock-a-hoop. Well done them.

ugo.santalucia

bompington wrote:

Time and again it has been demonstrated that reducing taxes increases government income. Time and again a new government claims that it is going to crack down on tax evasion only for it to turn out that the sums they were claiming were total hot air.

But people still go on believing the myth.

Clearly Scandinavian countries with their high stardard of living got it all wrong then... they should lower taxes, so they would increase income and have an even better living standard...

Osborne should show them a thing or two on how to run a country... :roll:

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Time and again it has been demonstrated that reducing taxes increases government income. Time and again a new government claims that it is going to crack down on tax evasion only for it to turn out that the sums they were claiming were total hot air.

.

This isn't the case though, is it?

I mean, it isn't the case at all if you take it to extremes.

If the government reduced income tax to 0.1%, do you genuinely think tax revenues would grow?

kingstongraham

bompington wrote:

Time and again it has been demonstrated that reducing taxes increases government income. Time and again a new government claims that it is going to crack down on tax evasion only for it to turn out that the sums they were claiming were total hot air.

But people still go on believing the myth.

Even according to the Laffer curve, reducing taxes does not always increase government income.

Where has it been shown that reducing taxes from the level they are now would increase government income?

rick_chasey

People like Bompington, if I may generalise, automatically assume that we are at the top point of the laffer curve.

I see no empirical evidence for that, nor indeed evidence that it isn't.

ugo.santalucia

... but let's not ruin what seems a good story...

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

People like Bompington, if I may generalise, automatically assume that we are at the top point of the laffer curve.

I see no empirical evidence for that, nor indeed evidence that it isn't.

as you know people place a greater emphasis on losing stuff than they do gaining stuff. Therefore, just off the top of the Laffer Curve could be argued to be wherever we currently are.

eg: whether we have 20% or 40% as a top rate of tax if you increased either by 20% people would actively look into avoidance.

FWIW - I see it more as an initial curve followed by a plateau

pinno

bompington wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Bompington...submarines).

3. Your cod analysis of my motivation jumping to wild conclusions on no evidence whatsoever? Couldn't be more wrong. I subscribe to the view that nuclear weapons - yes, MAD- have helped to prevent catastrophic war for 70 years now, because there is plenty of evidence to support this. I certainly don't subscribe to any of the views you give to me in this paragraph.

Yay! A full response. Looks like a different sort of lure is required.

Assumptions aside and I am duly corrected but i'll refer to the above.

Conflict has gone on continuously since the end of WW2 unless of course, you have been living in a bubble. Some would say that it has allowed conventional war to take place because the use of Nuclear war heads is inconceivable.
We have not had peace. Perhaps not another world war but peace we have not had.
So we have not had WW3 despite the proliferation of nuclear weapons not because?.
Philosophically and given the numbers of deaths in the middle East plus the fact that the major powers are fighting a war by proxy in Syria, aren't we in WW3 now? Just because it isn't happening on our doorstep, doesn't mean it isn't a major conflict.
The sheer numbers of deaths at the hands of Saddam and quite possibly dwarfed by the allied death toll inflicted by us, add Syria and add ISIS and fundamentalist terrorism from Pakistan to Munich to Paris to London to Lagos, there is no doubt that there is a major conflict going on. The exodus of people's throughout the middle east in recent years is akin to the exodus during WW2 in numbers.

Given the above, are you really sure about world peace since the end of WW2 and have you really convinced yourself that Nuclear weapons have delivered this so called peace? If not, read on...

How many people died in Iraq over the last 15 years?
How many have died in Syria?
How many have died in all the civil wars in Africa since 1945?
How many Vietnamese died at the hands of the Americans? I can answer that: 52,000 Americans, 2 million Vietnamese.
How many died in the war in Korea?
How many died at the hands of Polpot?
How many have died in Afghanistan?
How many died in the Iran/Iraq war?
How many have died in Libya...Kosovo...Serbia...Argentina...Nicaragua...Mexico...
Uganda...Ukraine...Georgia...Pakistan...Chechnya...Haiti...Sri Lanka...
Isreal/Palestine...Angola...Sudan...

Need I go on?

Yeah, yeah. Who is anyone trying to fool when they say we've had global peace sine the end of the 2nd WW... and because 'we' had Nuclear weapons?!

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Looks like the loony left have got one over on you Bompy.
Maybe the right are a little tetchy and paranoid, Or have they always been like that?

What, like they 'got one over' by losing the general election?

The loony left's definition of success appears to be losing by less than expected. A great case of creating success by lowering expectations?

Cmon stevo, your better than this, above it all...have more lucid arguments etc,

OK, I concede. The loony left did get one over us by losing the election. I guess it's all part of Corbyns plan to continue the grand tradition of leftie losers

So i take it you think May and the Tories are in a stronger position than pre GE ? and that getting the DUP on board was part of Mays master plan to inc ALL regions in Gov policy lol!

No, they are not. But they still won the election, which is what counts.

Labour were not in power before the GE and they aren't in power after the GE. Just in case anyone wasn't clear on that point

It's still presumably not the outcome you were hoping for when you joined the Labour party and voted for Corbyn though, surely?

pinno

You won't get Stevo to admit to anything Bobmcstuff.
In order to get to it's destination, sometimes you have to put blinkers on the horse.
Therefore, what happens on the way (even if things get broken or lost) becomes irrelevant and surplus to the outcome.
It's otherwise known as tunnel vision.
Given the logic above, he is a blind pit pony and should be considered for rehabilitation.
(Those who don't posses the patience or humanity would recommend taking him out the back and shooting him. I'm not one of them BTW - just saying like).

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Looks like the loony left have got one over on you Bompy.
Maybe the right are a little tetchy and paranoid, Or have they always been like that?

What, like they 'got one over' by losing the general election?

The loony left's definition of success appears to be losing by less than expected. A great case of creating success by lowering expectations?

Cmon stevo, your better than this, above it all...have more lucid arguments etc,

OK, I concede. The loony left did get one over us by losing the election. I guess it's all part of Corbyns plan to continue the grand tradition of leftie losers

So i take it you think May and the Tories are in a stronger position than pre GE ? and that getting the DUP on board was part of Mays master plan to inc ALL regions in Gov policy lol!

No, they are not. But they still won the election, which is what counts.

Labour were not in power before the GE and they aren't in power after the GE. Just in case anyone wasn't clear on that point

It's still presumably not the outcome you were hoping for when you joined the Labour party and voted for Corbyn though, surely?

Not as good as hoped for sure! But the primary aim was to keep Labour out of power, so job done. A win on penalties os still a win

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Looks like the loony left have got one over on you Bompy.
Maybe the right are a little tetchy and paranoid, Or have they always been like that?

What, like they 'got one over' by losing the general election?

The loony left's definition of success appears to be losing by less than expected. A great case of creating success by lowering expectations?

Cmon stevo, your better than this, above it all...have more lucid arguments etc,

OK, I concede. The loony left did get one over us by losing the election. I guess it's all part of Corbyns plan to continue the grand tradition of leftie losers

So i take it you think May and the Tories are in a stronger position than pre GE ? and that getting the DUP on board was part of Mays master plan to inc ALL regions in Gov policy lol!

No, they are not. But they still won the election, which is what counts.

Labour were not in power before the GE and they aren't in power after the GE. Just in case anyone wasn't clear on that point

Yep its gone well for her no doubt..... Labour were already out of power and TM had won the match.... she then decided to offer the opposition a free hit....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 92006.html

listening to Corbyn and Khan at in Kensington, you would def think JC was PM, May on the other hand was nt to be seen... unbelievable really, one of the greatest peace time disasters and she hides, a joke PM and she is our brexit girl :oops:

Khan was put under pressure but he stood his ground against some understandably hostile questions.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Looks like the loony left have got one over on you Bompy.
Maybe the right are a little tetchy and paranoid, Or have they always been like that?

What, like they 'got one over' by losing the general election?

The loony left's definition of success appears to be losing by less than expected. A great case of creating success by lowering expectations?

Cmon stevo, your better than this, above it all...have more lucid arguments etc,

OK, I concede. The loony left did get one over us by losing the election. I guess it's all part of Corbyns plan to continue the grand tradition of leftie losers

So i take it you think May and the Tories are in a stronger position than pre GE ? and that getting the DUP on board was part of Mays master plan to inc ALL regions in Gov policy lol!

No, they are not. But they still won the election, which is what counts.

Labour were not in power before the GE and they aren't in power after the GE. Just in case anyone wasn't clear on that point

It's still presumably not the outcome you were hoping for when you joined the Labour party and voted for Corbyn though, surely?

Not as good as hoped for sure! But the primary aim was to keep Labour out of power, so job done. A win on penalties os still a win

Still waiting for that DUP deal - I guess the ref is reviewing the video evidence for that last penalty. Did it cross the line?

Don't get me wrong: the collapse of the deal, a failed Queen's Speech and Corbyn attempting a minority government would be far worse than if he'd just won the GE, but it is at least a possibility.

pblakeney

We are not at penalties yet.
This is just extra time.

orraloon

PBlakeney wrote:

We are not at penalties yet.
This is just extra time.

The Germans always win on penalties. Jest saying like.

tailwindhome

The Premiership team have scored a last gasp equaliser against unfancied, unheard of opposition to avoid an embarrassing giant killing by an unfashionable manager. The minnows with get a home replay with the country behind them.

Abbott will have Labour playing in her favoured 5-4-3 formation.

bobmcstuff

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/ho ... -election/

Interesting that Labour was ahead in every group except retirees... Number of interesting things in there really.

rick_chasey

Fwiw, however distasteful you find the point, when it comes to regulation, the Grenfell disaster is an example of why some things needs to be regulated, regardless of cost.

bobmcstuff

Rick Chasey wrote:

Fwiw, however distasteful you find the point, when it comes to regulation, the Grenfell disaster is an example of why some things needs to be regulated, regardless of cost.

Wonder why they weren't regulated...






(Its because conservative politicians were against putting extra regulation onto builders)